@prashanthamine
Mumbai: History has an unforgiving, nasty habit of digging up past graves when one tries to fiddle with it in a half-measure. Critics have been critical of the way in which Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari has questioned decisions of the Shiv Sena, Congress and Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) led Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) ever since it has come to power in November 2019. The debate also brings into focus the role played by the Governors in the past whenever President’s Rule has been imposed in any state in the country. Then there have been Governors who have also been quite vocal and those who apparently crossed the line much to the dislike of the Centre.
There is an uncanny connection between key players and the three times that the President’s Rule has been imposed in Maharashtra. First time it was Progressive Democratic Front (PDF) government of Chief Minister Sharad Pawar on February 17, 1980 (112 days), then in September 28, 2014 (33 days) when Congress Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan resigned after NCP withdrew its support to the government, and on November 12, 2019 (11 days) when no political party could form the government after the Assembly elections were over.
It is an open secret that there is no love lost between Governor B S Koshyari and the Sena-Congress-NCP led MVA ever since the latter came to power last year. At the very first instance during the process of government formation, the Sena had rushed to the Supreme Court of India (SCI) accusing the Governor of “arbitrary and malafide action” in not giving it enough time to submit letters of support to stake claim to form the government.
The Governor then put his foot down and made some MVA ministers to retake their oath of office after he urged them to stick to the scripted oath. Thereafter, be it the issue of holding final year exams during Covid-19 lockdown period, putting on hold the nomination of 12 Governor nominated members to the Legislative Council or the latest missive questioning the MVA government over unlocking doors of temples, triggering off a debate over Hindutva credentials.
In the latest instance, NCP chief Sharad Pawar’s caustically sarcastic retort on October 21 to the Governor over his coffee table book questioning his contribution as the Governor of Maharashtra in such a short duration in office. If that was not enough, Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray sparred with the Governor over the Hindutva jibe.
The Governors actions have been equated with those of late Kona Prabhakara Rao who during his tenure as Governor of Maharashtra between May 1985 to April 1986 is reported to have shown more than a casual interest in the alleged marks scam indulged into by then chief minister Shivajirao Patil Nilangekar (June 1985 – March 1986) for his daughter Chandrakala Dawle.
He had to quit after Justice M L Pendse in the Bombay High Court pronounced the guilty verdict on March 6, 1986. Things then went to such an extent that the ground floor courtroom number six in the Bombay High Court acquired the status of a cursed place as four years earlier former chief minister A R Antulay had to resign in the aftermath of the alleged Cement allotment scam in 1982.
Even as the NCP chief was critical of the Governor, his nephew heaped praise on prime minister late Indira Gandhi crediting her with putting India on the path of becoming a super-power through her sacrifice, actions and leadership.
It was Indira Gandhi after her return to power in 1980 had dismissed the Sharad Pawar led PDF government on February 17, 1980. O P Mehra was the then Governor of Maharashtra. Again it was the NCP at the centre of the political crisis in the state when it withdrew its support to the Congress led government of chief minister Prithviraj Chavan forcing him to quit and Presidents Rule was imposed on September 28, 2014 during tenure of Ch Vidyasagar Rao as the Governor.
The justice Sarkaria commission in its report of 1988 on centre-state relations had stressed upon the arbitrary use of Article 356 in toppling state governments which did not toe the Centres political and ideological line.
The role of the Governor especially in the light of use of Article 356 in imposition of Presidents Rule in a state has always been under a cloud of suspicion and controversy. It was the SCI judgment in the S R Bommai – vs – Union of India case in March 1994 effectively curbed the itching tendency of the Centre to dismiss non-Congress governments in the state at its whims and fancies and at the mere drop of a hat.
The judgment had a salutary effect in 1997 as the Centre withdrew its move to use Article 356 against Uttar Pradesh and Bihar state governments after then President of India, K R Narayanan returned the Centres proposal.
Before the Bommai judgment nearly 40 times Article 356 was used, and later on, only 11 times in the 15 years that followed after the 1994 judgment. It is not that only the Congress government at the Centre indulged in the toppling game of non-Congress state governments, former prime minister’s like Morarji Desai (1977-79), Charan Singh (1979-80), V P Singh (1989-90) and Chandra Shekhar (1990-91). In all these instances the role of the Governor doing the bidding of the Centre has always been under the cloud of suspicion.
But not resorting to its use in 1998 against the DMK government in Tamil Nadu at the insistence of J Jayalalitha, late prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee later ensured the support of the DMK for his second term. Nowadays, in the aftermath of the Bommai judgment it has no longer remained that easy for the Centre to resort to politically motivated moves to topple any state government not of its liking. However, the criticism remains and fears continue to be raised.
Between 1953 to April 13, 2009 the following state governments in these states were removed – Assam (4), Bihar (8), Goa (5), Gujarat (5), Jammu and Kashmir (9), Karnataka (6), Kerala (4), Manipur (10), Odisha (6), Puducherry (6), Punjab (8), Rajasthan (4), Tamil Nadu (5), Uttar Pradesh (9) and West Bengal (4).
In the recent past Governor’s like Satya Pal Malik were forced out of office in November 2018 after he spilled the beans on how the Centre wanted Sajad Lone as the chief minister. The Mehbooba Mufti led Peoples Democratic Party, the National Conference and Congress were rumored to be on the verge of forming an alliance government.
Meghalaya Governor Tathagata Roy too has been known for making controversial remarks on twitter in February 2019 in support of a call for economic boycott of Kashmir and Kashmiri’s. The Supreme Court quashed Arunachal Pradesh Governor J P Rajakhowa’s move to advance session of state assembly from January 14, 2016 to December 16, 2015. Kerala Governor Arif Mohammad Khan and Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan face-off following the Kerala assembly passing resolution against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019 enacted by the Centre.
One has certainly not heard the last word on the role of a Governor, the controversies and the specter of imposition of Presidents Rule shall continue to haunt as long as there are governments headed by political parties with diverse political ideologies, regional identities and weak power centres. The 1994 Bommai judgment has somewhat steadied the rocking boat as Central Governments now hesitate in playing the toppling game so brazenly.
