An article
written by R. B. Singh that was originally published in Our Leader (Allahabad
edition) on September 28, 1993
The exact working of the provisions of the
Constitution of India is of extreme importance under the political conditions
of the nation which is charged with all kinds of confrontations, between,
centre and states, between states and states, between the President and Prime
Minister, between the Governor and the Chief Minister in States.
I would like to discuss the cases of
confrontation between Governor and Chief Minister.
The elements of usages and customs
constitute a very important chapter in the study of the politics and
constitution.
The Governor, Chief Minister and Council
of Ministers are known as Governor in Council.
Article 167 of the Constitution of India
reads.
It shall be the duty of the Chief Minister
of each State-
(a) to communicate to the Governor of the States all
decisions of the Council of Ministers relating to the administration of the
affairs of the State and proposals for legislation;
(b) to furnish such information relating to the
administration of the affairs of the State and proposals for legislation as the
Governor may call for; and
(c) if the Governor so requires, to submit for the
consideration of the Council of Ministers any matter on which a decision has
been taken by a Minister but which has not been considered by the council.
It has generally been seen that the Chief
Minister altogether ignore the Governors and try to deprive the Governors of
the rights under Article 167 of the constitution of India; the Governor at the
same time don’t care to execute their above right and have the information as
provided in Article 167 of the constitution of India and issue directions, and
a kind of friendship between the Governor and Chief Minister or confrontations
and bickering develops between them instead of the constitutional relationship
between them.
A question arises, “what the
governor should do if the Chief Minster wants to deprive the Governor of his
rights under Article 167”.
The Governor should assert is
right, in a polite manner as is apparent from the following letter of Mr.
Sunder Lal Khurana the Governor of Tamil Nadu to Mr. M.G. Ramachandran the
Chief Minister of State, dated May 20, 1986:
“My dear Chief Minister,
Of late I find that I learn
about the policy decisions through the newspapers. If legislation is involved,
I know only when the Governor’ message is sought. Article 167 of the
Constitution indicates the role of Chief Minister regarding the furnishing of the
information to the governor. Article 166(3) says that the governor shall make
rules for convenient transaction of the business of the state. Rule 35(2) gives
the classes of cases that shall be submitted by the Chief Minister to the
governor before the issue of the orders. Clause 2 of this rule lists the cases
pertaining to the question of policy.
Where change of policy or
practice is involved the governor has to be kept informed. Even the minutes of
the Council of Ministers relating to a meeting held on October 28, 1985, where
received by me in March 1986. No meeting of the council of Ministers seems to
have been held after December 3, 1985, except a meeting held on March 11, 1986,
to consider the budget. None of the policy decision taken recently seemed to
have been discussed in the Council of Ministers as visualized in Clause 16 of
the Second Schedule of the Business Rules. You may examine this so that at
major items of policy do come up before the Council of Minister and minutes are
sent to me immediately thereafter as visualized in Article 167(1) of the
constitution. Frequent contacts and frank exchange of views between the chief
minister and the governor are the essence of the Constitutional requirements. I
presume that you would have inferred that my role as head of the state has
throughout been constructive and in the best interest of the state.
Unfortunately in the recent past when a number of major decisions have been taken
I find that I have been kept in the dark. I do hope that this position will be
rectified.”
The Chief Minister of the States
should not try to overstep the Governor who is asserting his right under
Article 167 of the constitution of India, but they should resort to process of
cooperation for which they should write to the Governor exposing regret in a
polite manner as is apparent from the following reply of Mr. M. G. Ramachandran
the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu to Mr. Sunder Lal Khurana the Governor of the
State ten days later.
“Dear Governor,
I received your letter of May
20, 1986. I learn that you have not been informed about some of the decision
taken recently. I have been under the impression that everything has been going
on according to the rules and procedures prescribed in the Business Rules. If
there has been any omission, I feel, these could have been averted had I been
properly advised by the chief secretary in such matters. I assure you that they
are absolutely unintentional. The chief secretary and the senior official in
the secretariat have, therefore, been instructed suitably to strictly adhere to
the rules and procedures and the constitutional requirements that are already
in vogue. I fully agree with you that the frequent meetings with the chief
minister and the governor are very much imperative and useful in the interest
of the state and I can assure you of my fullest cooperation in this regard. In
fact, I have always deemed it a pleasure to meet you often and discuss with you
all important matters. I am proud to say that in all the meetings I had with you,
I felt as if I had met a personal friend from home. I have always got valuable
advice and guidance. I have got the highest regard for you and great admiration
for a constructive role you are playing as head of the state.”
After which the Governor and
Chief Minister cooperated in their working as friends as governor in council.
In my humble opinion the
Governor of other states too should exercise the Bagehot’s three rights, to
advise, to warn and to be consulted of the British Monarch and send letters to
the Chief Ministers, whenever they think that the chief Ministers are not
exercising their powers in accordance with the provisions of the constitution
and the laws which the Chief Minister would have to acknowledge and make amendments
in them. The governor has the rights, in terms of his oath which he is
administered by the Chief Justice of High Court before entering upon the office
of the Governor, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the laws.
