Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Governor, as a constitutional head of a state, occupies a unique position in the Indian federal structure, acting as a representative of the Union Government and a vital link between the state and the centre. Article 155 of the Constitution deals with the appointment of the Governor. However, the office has frequently been embroiled in controversy due to perceived political bias and interference. Despite numerous commissions recognizing the need for an apolitical Governor to uphold the spirit of federalism and constitutional governance, successive governments have largely failed to heed these recommendations, leading to a persistent erosion of the office’s neutrality.
Commissions and Recommendations
Several commissions have highlighted the importance of an apolitical Governor. The Sarkaria Commission (1988) emphasized that the Governor should be eminent persons, not necessarily from politics, and should act as a balancing force in the Centre-State relations. It advocated for a broader consultation process in appointments. The Punchhi Commission (2010) further reinforced this, suggesting that retired civil servants and eminent personalities could also be considered for the post, and that the Governor should be a detached head. Both commissions stressed the need to avoid active politicians being appointed as Governors, as it compromises their impartiality. These recommendations aimed to ensure the Governor’s role as a neutral arbiter, upholding the Constitution and promoting cooperative federalism.
Instances of Politicization
Despite these recommendations, the practice of appointing Governors with a political background continues. Several instances demonstrate this politicization:
- Karnataka (2018): The appointment of Vajubhai Vala as Governor during the formation of a coalition government led to accusations of bias in favour of the BJP, delaying the swearing-in of the coalition government.
- Maharashtra (2019): The role of Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari during the formation of the government after the assembly elections was heavily criticized for allegedly favoring the BJP, leading to a political crisis. His actions were seen as violating the principles of neutrality and democratic norms.
- West Bengal (Recent years): The ongoing friction between the Governor and the state government, often involving public statements and interventions, highlights the potential for political conflict when the Governor is perceived as an agent of the central government.
- Tamil Nadu (2023): The Governor R.N. Ravi’s delayed assent to several bills passed by the state legislature, and his public disagreements with the state government, raised concerns about the office being used for political purposes.
Constitutional Provisions & Practical Realities
Article 155(1) of the Constitution states that the Governor is appointed by the President. While the Constitution doesn’t explicitly bar politicians from being appointed, the spirit of the document and the recommendations of commissions suggest a preference for neutrality. The reality is that the Governor’s office is often seen as a ‘retirement home’ for politicians, a reward for loyalty or service to the ruling party at the Centre. This creates a situation where the Governor’s actions are often viewed through a political lens, undermining their credibility and effectiveness. The Governor’s discretionary powers, such as in the selection of the Chief Minister in a hung assembly, further exacerbate this issue, as these powers can be misused for political gain.
Impact on Federalism
The politicization of the Governor’s office has a detrimental impact on Centre-State relations and the overall health of Indian federalism. It fosters mistrust and antagonism between the Centre and the states, hindering cooperative governance. When Governors are perceived as agents of the central government, state governments are less likely to engage in constructive dialogue and collaboration. This can lead to political instability and impede the implementation of important policies and programs.
| Commission | Key Recommendation | Impact of Non-Implementation |
|---|---|---|
| Sarkaria Commission (1988) | Eminent persons, not necessarily politicians, should be appointed as Governors. | Continued appointment of politicians, leading to perceived bias and erosion of neutrality. |
| Punchhi Commission (2010) | Consider retired civil servants and eminent personalities for the post. | Perpetuation of the practice of using the Governor’s office as a political reward. |
Conclusion
The continued politicization of the Governor’s office, despite repeated recommendations for depoliticization, underscores a systemic issue within India’s governance structure. While the constitutional framework allows for political appointments, adhering to the spirit of neutrality, as envisioned by the commissions, is crucial for maintaining federal balance and upholding constitutional principles. A more transparent and consultative appointment process, prioritizing individuals with proven integrity and impartiality, is essential to restore the Governor’s office to its intended role as a neutral arbiter and a vital link in the Indian federal system.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.