The post of the governor is nowadays in discussion due to more controversies than a link between the center-state relationship. Apart from the Central Government and its allies, the Chief Ministers of various states of the party accuse the Governor of working unnecessarily out of the basic nature of federalism, while the Governor accuses these Chief Ministers of working against the national spirit.
Before we proceed with this debate, before that it is important for us to know that where did the concept of the post of governor come from? India has taken the form of the present governor from Canada, but the concept of governor in India has existed since ancient times. Kshatrapas were appointed by the Shaka kings to run the administration of various areas under their kingdom.
Even during the reign of the Mughals, the form of the governor system is seen in different provinces. It can also be seen in the era of British India. Here the governor’s supremacy is also seen. This system continued in India even after independence. Although there is legislative supremacy today, the governor of a state is still the constitutional head of that state.
Presently the role of the Governor acts as a link between the Centre-State. Along with this, the Governor also performs the responsibilities of conducting legislative business related to prorogation of state legislatures, convening joint meetings. Various bills passed by the Legislative Assembly of the state are also signed by the Governor at his discretion or sent for the consideration of the President.
One of the main things that comes to the fore in the Governor-Chief Minister dispute is the appointment process of the Governor. In fact, the role of the Union Council of Ministers is most effective in the appointment of the Governor. Often the central government chooses those people as governors who have been loyal to their own party for years.
It is at this point that the question of the independence of the Governor arises. They are accused of being a puppet of the central government.
If these allegations are investigated, then many times they also seem to be true. In fact, many times the Governor imposes President’s rule in a state in the name of constitutional failure by the Chief Minister of that state, whereas in reality the governance is going on smoothly there.
The Supreme Court has also reprimanded the central government in this regard many times. The discretionary powers of the governor is also a big issue. In fact, in case of ambiguity of majority by any one party, the Governor appoints a Chief Minister from the Raj Bhavan itself. In fact, it should give an opportunity to the government to prove its majority on the floor of the House.
But at the behest of the Center, the Governor appoints someone as the Chief Minister on the basis of letters of support in the Raj Bhavan itself. After this, the House also gives some time to prove the majority. In the meantime, a certain Chief Minister mobilizes the necessary support from the manipulations and presents his claim in the House.
Such acts of the governor also hurt the basic spirit of democracy. That is why the independence of the governor is a big democratic issue. Sarkaria Commission, Rajamannar Committee and First Administrative Reforms Commission have also made necessary suggestions in this regard. They say that before the appointment of the Governor of a state, the Chief Minister of that state should also be consulted.
The Commission constituted in the year 2000 to review the working of the Constitution has also given its opinion in this regard – there will be a committee for the appointment of the Governor. This committee will be made up of four members – Prime Minister, Home Minister (Government of India), Lok Sabha Speaker and Chief Minister of the concerned state.
Apart from this, the person going to become the governor should also have the qualities of administrative efficiency. The Governor of a State should act as a friend, philosopher and guide of that State.