01-28-2006, 01:03 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Review the role of Governor </b>
pioneer.com
Hari Jaisingh
A fraud is a fraud. A violation is a violation. Anyone who indulges in constitutional fraud or violates the law of the land or goes against the basic propriety of parliamentary democracy, howsoever well-placed, must not be allowed to go scot-free. This is the underlying message of detailed Supreme Court judgment on the dissolution of the Bihar Assembly delivered on January 24. Mr Buta Singh has since resigned as Governor, but not without some drama.
<b>Mr Buta Singh did indulge in a constitutional fraud by sending a highly politicised and partisan piece of advice to the Union Cabinet seeking dissolution of the Bihar Assembly</b>. This was a blatantly coloured view and distorted perspective on the goings-on in the State. Mr Buta Singh then had struck a high-pitched moral note on the business of horse-trading of elected legislators to the Bihar Assembly.
It is true that horse-trading in the name of "saving democracy" is part of the new political culture in the country. But what Mr Buta Singh was aiming at was obviously part of a larger political game he had been playing ever since he was installed as Governor in Patna. His was an out and out political appointment which has, unfortunately, become the standard practice in the corridors of power whichever party happens to be in the saddle.
A political appointee at Raj Bhavan is expected to deliver the "goods" to his patrons-in-chief whenever a delicate situation so demands. And Bihar is not the usual run-of-the-mill state. It is different from most of the other states in the country. What has made Bihar extra special in recent years is the larger-than-life presence of Mr Lalu Prasad Yadav as a key partner in the coalition Government in New Delhi.
We all are familiar with the sort of personalised politics the Union Railway Minister plays when it comes to his state, which he has virtually treated as his personal and family fiefdom. Of course, he has a charming rustic style to cast a spell on his friends and foes. He knows the art of silencing his critics. He also knows how to come out of an embarrassing situation.
In any case, the apex court is not generally bothered about what goes beyond legal parameters. The question here is one of legality of the Bihar action on the part of the Governor. The Supreme Court has held the dissolution of the Assembly as unconstitutional and illegal and observed that this was done to prevent JD(U) leader Nitish Kumar from staking claim to form Government in Patna.
A loyal Congressman, Mr Buta Singh is a political person. He has been quietly nursing his political constituency and has often given the impression of his ever-willingness to oblige the powers-that-be to mutual advantage. Well, certain inconvenient questions could be raised: Was Mr Buta Singh prompted by vested interests of certain politicians? Was he playing any sponsored game?
<b>Mr Buta Singh had of late been trying to rehabilitate himself in the country's new-breed coalition politics which explains some of his controversial moves.</b> The Supreme Court judgment is sharp and categorical. First, it held Mr Buta Singh guilty of sending a malafide report on dissolution of the Assembly and thereby misleading the Union Cabinet. Second, it criticised the Union Cabinet for not verifying the Governor's report from its alternative sources of information. The Court observed: "...the drastic and extreme action under Article 356 of the Constitution cannot be justified on mere ipse dixit, suspicion, whims and fancies of the Governor".
The majority Bench further observed that "the court cannot remain a silent spectator watching the subversion of the Constitution. It is to be remembered that this Court is the sentinel on the qui vive". These are very pertinent observations. However, whether the Centre should have verified the Governor's report may be a debatable issue. But there was an element of indecent haste the way the whole matter was pursued. The Prime Minister called a late night Cabinet meeting for this purpose.
After getting the Cabinet's approval, he called the President who was then in Moscow and forwarded its recommendation to him. Dr Abdul Kalam faxed his approval past midnight. Though the Supreme Court has not directly indicted the Union Cabinet, its criticism surely does raise the morality question. But who cares for morality? Everything is politics these days - from a Governor's appointment to his conduct on vital matters. This is, in fact, a major functional distortion in the working of the Constitution.
Since the Governor stays in office at the pleasure of the President, that is, the Union Government, it is presumed that he carries on as long as he manages to be on the right side of political masters at the Centre. It is a actually a harsh fact that the office of Governor has become a politicised slot. A fair-minded enlightened person can make a difference to the functioning of this sensitive position. As it is, no elected Chief Minister would like the Governor to act as a parallel authority. Nor would he relish his conduct as a bully at the prompting of the central authority.
True, the Governor has certain discretionary powers under the Constitution in case of the breakdown of the constitutional authority in the state. But in normal course he has to be on his guard and be careful about his moves and counter-moves lest he should be exposed publicly. In case of Mr Buta Singh he has given enough evidence of being partisan and selective in his functioning. No wonder, he gave a clear indication of conducting himself as a political person.
Be that as it may, the Buta episode should give us enough food for thought on selection of governors. Even the Supreme Court has suggested a national policy and new norms for the appointment and conduct of governors. Quoting the Sarkaria Commission recommendations in this respect, the judgment clearly observed that for appointment of a person as a Governor, criteria should be that he should be eminent in some walk of life, hail from outside the state, detached and not intimately connected with local politics of the state and should be a person who has not taken too great a part in politics generally and particularly in the recent past.
The apex court regretted that, <b>"Unfortunately, the Constitution has been totally breached by all political parties. It is seen that one day a person is in active politics, viz. holding office of Chief Minister or a Minister or a party post, and almost on the following day he/she is appointed Governor of another State with hardly any cooling period. Ordinarily, it is difficult to expect detachment from party politics from such a person while performing functions of a Governor," </b>the court stated.
The whole matter deserves serious consideration by all those who have stakes in the future of the Republic. Of course, most political leaders strike high moral notes publicly. They talk big without caring for follow-up action. There is a large gap between rhetoric and practice. This is one major reason for the decline in political standards. The way out of functional distortions in governance is selection of right persons for sensitive positions.
Indeed, time has come to review the question of Governor's appointment afresh in the larger context of making India functionally fair and politically transparent and accountable. The writing on the wall is clear. We need to reverse the drift in governance and further strengthen the spirit of democracy
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
pioneer.com
Hari Jaisingh
A fraud is a fraud. A violation is a violation. Anyone who indulges in constitutional fraud or violates the law of the land or goes against the basic propriety of parliamentary democracy, howsoever well-placed, must not be allowed to go scot-free. This is the underlying message of detailed Supreme Court judgment on the dissolution of the Bihar Assembly delivered on January 24. Mr Buta Singh has since resigned as Governor, but not without some drama.
<b>Mr Buta Singh did indulge in a constitutional fraud by sending a highly politicised and partisan piece of advice to the Union Cabinet seeking dissolution of the Bihar Assembly</b>. This was a blatantly coloured view and distorted perspective on the goings-on in the State. Mr Buta Singh then had struck a high-pitched moral note on the business of horse-trading of elected legislators to the Bihar Assembly.
It is true that horse-trading in the name of "saving democracy" is part of the new political culture in the country. But what Mr Buta Singh was aiming at was obviously part of a larger political game he had been playing ever since he was installed as Governor in Patna. His was an out and out political appointment which has, unfortunately, become the standard practice in the corridors of power whichever party happens to be in the saddle.
A political appointee at Raj Bhavan is expected to deliver the "goods" to his patrons-in-chief whenever a delicate situation so demands. And Bihar is not the usual run-of-the-mill state. It is different from most of the other states in the country. What has made Bihar extra special in recent years is the larger-than-life presence of Mr Lalu Prasad Yadav as a key partner in the coalition Government in New Delhi.
We all are familiar with the sort of personalised politics the Union Railway Minister plays when it comes to his state, which he has virtually treated as his personal and family fiefdom. Of course, he has a charming rustic style to cast a spell on his friends and foes. He knows the art of silencing his critics. He also knows how to come out of an embarrassing situation.
In any case, the apex court is not generally bothered about what goes beyond legal parameters. The question here is one of legality of the Bihar action on the part of the Governor. The Supreme Court has held the dissolution of the Assembly as unconstitutional and illegal and observed that this was done to prevent JD(U) leader Nitish Kumar from staking claim to form Government in Patna.
A loyal Congressman, Mr Buta Singh is a political person. He has been quietly nursing his political constituency and has often given the impression of his ever-willingness to oblige the powers-that-be to mutual advantage. Well, certain inconvenient questions could be raised: Was Mr Buta Singh prompted by vested interests of certain politicians? Was he playing any sponsored game?
<b>Mr Buta Singh had of late been trying to rehabilitate himself in the country's new-breed coalition politics which explains some of his controversial moves.</b> The Supreme Court judgment is sharp and categorical. First, it held Mr Buta Singh guilty of sending a malafide report on dissolution of the Assembly and thereby misleading the Union Cabinet. Second, it criticised the Union Cabinet for not verifying the Governor's report from its alternative sources of information. The Court observed: "...the drastic and extreme action under Article 356 of the Constitution cannot be justified on mere ipse dixit, suspicion, whims and fancies of the Governor".
The majority Bench further observed that "the court cannot remain a silent spectator watching the subversion of the Constitution. It is to be remembered that this Court is the sentinel on the qui vive". These are very pertinent observations. However, whether the Centre should have verified the Governor's report may be a debatable issue. But there was an element of indecent haste the way the whole matter was pursued. The Prime Minister called a late night Cabinet meeting for this purpose.
After getting the Cabinet's approval, he called the President who was then in Moscow and forwarded its recommendation to him. Dr Abdul Kalam faxed his approval past midnight. Though the Supreme Court has not directly indicted the Union Cabinet, its criticism surely does raise the morality question. But who cares for morality? Everything is politics these days - from a Governor's appointment to his conduct on vital matters. This is, in fact, a major functional distortion in the working of the Constitution.
Since the Governor stays in office at the pleasure of the President, that is, the Union Government, it is presumed that he carries on as long as he manages to be on the right side of political masters at the Centre. It is a actually a harsh fact that the office of Governor has become a politicised slot. A fair-minded enlightened person can make a difference to the functioning of this sensitive position. As it is, no elected Chief Minister would like the Governor to act as a parallel authority. Nor would he relish his conduct as a bully at the prompting of the central authority.
True, the Governor has certain discretionary powers under the Constitution in case of the breakdown of the constitutional authority in the state. But in normal course he has to be on his guard and be careful about his moves and counter-moves lest he should be exposed publicly. In case of Mr Buta Singh he has given enough evidence of being partisan and selective in his functioning. No wonder, he gave a clear indication of conducting himself as a political person.
Be that as it may, the Buta episode should give us enough food for thought on selection of governors. Even the Supreme Court has suggested a national policy and new norms for the appointment and conduct of governors. Quoting the Sarkaria Commission recommendations in this respect, the judgment clearly observed that for appointment of a person as a Governor, criteria should be that he should be eminent in some walk of life, hail from outside the state, detached and not intimately connected with local politics of the state and should be a person who has not taken too great a part in politics generally and particularly in the recent past.
The apex court regretted that, <b>"Unfortunately, the Constitution has been totally breached by all political parties. It is seen that one day a person is in active politics, viz. holding office of Chief Minister or a Minister or a party post, and almost on the following day he/she is appointed Governor of another State with hardly any cooling period. Ordinarily, it is difficult to expect detachment from party politics from such a person while performing functions of a Governor," </b>the court stated.
The whole matter deserves serious consideration by all those who have stakes in the future of the Republic. Of course, most political leaders strike high moral notes publicly. They talk big without caring for follow-up action. There is a large gap between rhetoric and practice. This is one major reason for the decline in political standards. The way out of functional distortions in governance is selection of right persons for sensitive positions.
Indeed, time has come to review the question of Governor's appointment afresh in the larger context of making India functionally fair and politically transparent and accountable. The writing on the wall is clear. We need to reverse the drift in governance and further strengthen the spirit of democracy
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->