Skip to main content

THE ROLE OF GOVERNOR IN A DEMOCRACY (INDIA)

"The President, or the Governor or Rajpramukh of a State, shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties" (Art. 361, The Constitution of India). The black letter law suggests that in order to facilitate the free excersize of Executive powers and duties (functions) of the President of India or the Governor of the State, their actions are not answerable to any Court. However, the discretion excersized by these Constitutional Authorities is not immune from the domain of judicial review. Every discretion excersized in arbitrary manner is susceptible to judicial review. In  Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006), the Apex Court declared the imposition of President's rule U/A- 356 of the Indian Constitution as unconstitutional. In one of paras, while dealing with the role of Governor, the Apex Court referred the statement of then Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, "You are the representatives of the center in states and hence, you bring a national perspective to state level actions and activities" (Emphasis Supplied).

In the present Karnataka issue, there might be at least two ways to think this specific situation. The technical or mechanical compliance of Law may favour BJP. However, in Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006), The Supreme Court of India, while dealing with the moment of crisis like hung Assembly and Dissolution of Assembly, came out with three possible alternatives in lexical priority, taking clue from Sarkaria Commission: (1) The Biggest pre-poll alliance has the first claim to form the Government; (2) The Single Largest Party; and (3) The biggest post- poll alliance. Here BJP passes the muster for the second condition and the Congress- JD(S) post-poll alliance qualifies for the third condition. These alternatives were also echoed by Punchhi Commission. But in Rameshwar Prasad (Supra), the Supreme Court of India echoed the pragmatic voice of Sarkaria Commission in these few words:

"It is clear that the leader of the party which has an absolute majority in the Legislative Assembly should invariably be called upon by the Governor to form a Government. However, if there is a fractured mandate, then the Commission recommends an elaborate step-by-step approach and has further emphasized that 'the Governor, while going through the process of selection as described, should select a leader who, in his judgement, is most likely to command a  majority in the Assembly'". 

It's difficult to say how to read the Constitution, even more difficult to articulate how not to read it.  A serious student of Constitutional Law should avoid reading the Constitution in terms of Black letter interpretation. The study of Constitution is not only in its expressions but in its "silences" (See Chelameshwar J. In 4th Judges' case). Every political crisis or "Politics of Crisis" brings forth the bright scope to transform Constitutional interpretation in sync with crisis, to reaffirm the very "demosprudential ethos" (Upendra Baxi, Jurisprudence v. Demosprudence) which is expected from every Constitutional Authority. The power of Governor is a symbolic one in a republican democracy like India. They are responsible, not only to adhere with every text and its context of the Constitution, but also the very Constitutional ethos, which is no less than to raise upto the stature of Justice, Equity, and good Conscience. 

When numbers are prima facie supporting the Congress-JD(S) alliance. Asking BJP to form the Government is an act of negation and abdication; not only of the precedents established in Goa and Manipur in contemporary epoch, where post-poll alliance got preference over the single largest party, but also the Constitutional ethos which asks the Governor to be above the suspicion like a Caesar's Wife!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Meeting Justice Rohinton Nariman in a Sunday Morning

Aristotle once wrote in his Nicomachean Ethics that there are four significant virtues for human beings, namely Prudence, Temperance, Justice, and Courage. There are a few judges who have courage and sense of justice, both. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Nariman has been truly an exemplar judge and erudite historian, theologian and philologist, a great scholar of music as well as a courageous and meticulous jurist of our country. He did his Master of Laws from Harvard Law School in 1980-81 and taught by one of the finest jurists of the last century, Roberto Unger. He became Senior Advocate in 1993 in the age of 37 and also served as Solicitor General of India in 2011 before he was elevated as a judge of the Supreme Court of India in 2014. He delivered many landmark judgments, including Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. There are a few people with whom time moves too fast, but to count that experience takes ages. Justice Rohinton Nariman is one of those great jurists with whom a meet...
1 comment
Read more

The Rhythm of Law: A Book Review

Book Cover of the Book Law is the subject and object of curiosity since the ancient civilizations started its journey of contemplation about the order within the nature; its mysterious paths inspired the germination of metaphysics. Initially, human's mode of existence lived as instinctual life as per the call of nature. Instincts were primarily used as a medium for survival and to receive the call of wisdom from the “order of nature”. Humans are primarily one of the modes of expression of the nature, as Spinoza calls it attributes which express the essence of God and modes which are derived from the essence of God or nature (Spinoza, Ethics). The doorway of all the laws, as brooding presence of harmony, may be received if one is alert to recognize its call. Prof. Raman Mittal has penned a beautiful book titled “The Rhythm of Law”. The uniqueness of the book is its potentialities to express the inexpressible wisdom. Martin Heidegger in his Magnum Opus, Being and Time, expresses the ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Violence of Law and Ethics of Care

The worldliness of world is constituted by care (Martin Heidegger). Only in our concernfull dealing with the things around, the existence of being may be understood. In our everydayness of care and concern the world appears to our consciousness. Care is the language, a nomos of our existence, yet it is hardly perceptible in a world of law, which was rightly defined by Hans Kelsen and Max Weber as “legitimate use of violence”. The monopoly of political state over the violent nature of law makes it the most elevated institutions in relation to various social orders co-existing with the political state. Politics, once conceived as “an art of possibilities” by Harold Laski, is now becoming merely a language of allegations, counter-allegations, trickery and manipulation, in one statement, it symbolizes the archetypical character of violence whose expression is apparent in the existence of law. Violence has become our mode of existence in a sense that it speaks through us when the humanity f...
Post a Comment
Read more