The Supreme Court's interpretation of Article 156(1) of the Constitution that Governors cannot be removed arbitrarily by the Centre (May 8) is most welcome. Whenever a new government is installed at the Centre, it wants to sack the Governors appointed by the previous regime and replace them with its choice candidates. There are several instances in which Governors of great calibre have played a proactive role in the administration of the State and hence became victims of political expediency of a new ruling party. The judgment will put an end to this unethical and unfair practice.
It is a welcome verdict. Often, the post is just an asylum for defeated candidates or troublemakers in political parties and an appeasement to dejected political heavyweights. Governors are also treated like the servants of the government at the Centre. The trend should change.
The Bench deserves praise for this breakthrough judgment. The Governor is a competent constitutional authority. His/her acts and decisions are non-political and should be seen from the constitutional point of view. Any affront to the competent constitutional authority amounts to insulting the highest office of the land.
P. Senthil Saravana Durai,
The verdict will put an end to the absurd practice of forcing the Governors to quit or resorting to their summary removal solely based on the likes and dislikes of the party in power at the Centre. As the very idea of treating Governors as party representatives is wrong, the judgment assumes great significance.
The Supreme Court's observation seems flawed. Invariably, gubernatorial posts are filled up with handpicked — aged and discarded — members of the ruling party as a ‘reward for their past services.' Leaders with ‘nuisance value' too are ‘accommodated' in Raj Bhavans. Thus, all occupants have a direct link and lien to the ruling party. In actual practice, they are invariably found to function as ‘agents' of the appointing party. Every new Central government has to ensure that it has a hold on the federal States, especially those run by its political opponents. Any collaboration between the State government and the Governor is certainly “unhealthy and undesirable.”
Recent developments in various spheres — judiciary, military and administration — show that none is above corruption or nepotism. Why not abolish the post of Governor or why not all Governors voluntarily resign when a new government is installed?