Restraint & magnanimity from Raj Bhawan is need of the hour : Abhishek Singhvi on Mamata-WB Governor issue

Abhishek Singhvi, @DrAMSinghvi, National Spokesperson, Congress :

  • Saw West Bengal CM comprehensive & Statesmanlike letter to Hon’ble Governor WB in local media.
  • Constitutionally unexceptionable. Restraint & magnanimity from Raj Bhawan is need of hour. Words from Raj Bhawan quoted by CM in her letter make for sorry reading. Respect for CM post begets respect.
  • There is nothing which cannot be consensually achieved between Central authorities. Gubernatorial approach of confrontation solves nothing. Friction impedes good governance. Outstanding Governors needed nothing more PC Alexander Joshi (frm Rajasthan); SudershanAggl GopalGandhi.
  • There are ways & means for Governor to convey concerns. There are methods for telling CM’s & there are appropriate uses of language. Assuming CM unfairly does not comply, Governor has no option but to hold horses. Cannot give directions to anyone. Cannot hold pressers. Cannot become implementer of his wishes.
  • Babasaheb Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly on 31/5/49 said, “We felt that the powers of the Governor were so limited, so nominal, his position so ornamental that probably very few would come forward to stand for election.
  • He added, “If Governor is a purely const. Guv with no more powers thn what we contemplate expressly to give him in Act, & has no power to interfere with internal admnstratn of a Provincial Ministry,I personally dont see any very fundmntal objection 2 principle of nomination.
  • On 8/6/49, Babasaheb went ahead and said, “The first thing that I would like the House to bear in mind is this. The Governor under the Constitution has no functions which he can discharge by himself: no functions at all.”
  • Seems that you are unware of the Sarkaria Commission’s categorical observations: “4.6.12 A Governor so ‘selected’ may well seek to override the powers of his CM, leading to friction between them and distortion of the system of responsible government. Such a Governor can hardly be expected to function as a constitutional head of the State. This was the reason why the Constitution-framers gave up the proposal to have an elected Governor.
  • 4.2.06 The Constituent Assembly discussed at length the various provisions relating to the Governor. Two important issues were considered. The first issue was whether there should be an elected Governor. It was recognised that co-existence of an elected Governor and a Chief Minister responsible to the Legislature might lead to friction and consequent weakness in administration. The concept of an elected Governor was therefore given up in favour of a nominated Governor.
  • In its specific recommendations, the Sarkaria Commission further said / “4.16.02 It is desirable that a politician from the ruling party at the Union is not appinted as Governor of a State which is being run by some other party or a combination of other parties.”
  • 4.16.03 In order to ensure effective consultation with the State Chief Minister in the selection of a person to be appointed as Governor the procedure of consultation should be prescribed in the Constitution itself by suitably amending Article 155.
  • 4.16.20 The Governor, while sending ad hoc or fortnightly reports to the President, should normally take his Chief Minister into confidence, unless there are overriding reasons to the contrary.

File Pic Credit : @DrAMSinghvi

Leave a Reply