Arunachal
Pradesh Governor J P Rajkhowa’ decision to order convening of the state
assembly proceedings in a school premises has again accentuated the debate that Governor’s
office continues to be embroiled in controversies.
The Governor of Arunachal Pradesh J P Rajkhowa has
made news in recent weeks. But more than hitting the headlines, he has yet
again revived the debate about the powers and responsibilities of the
gubernatorial post. Looking deep it ought to be stated that the office of the
Governors is actually linked to a basic feature of our Constitution – the
federalism. The Modi regime has rediscovered a phrase called ‘cooperative
federalism’ trying to give a new spin to distribution of powers.
![]() |
| Redefining Cooperative Federalism |
That Rajkhowa
is a BJP appointee and his role possibly putting weight behind Congress rebels in
the on-going dissidence activity has given an impression that the
constitutional position was being used to help the saffron party achieve
political goals vis-à-vis the Congress.
The BJP that rules the centre is not the ruling
party in several states. This obviously gives added urgency to the question of
a proper redistribution of power between the centre and the states.
Rajkhowa’ decision to order convening of the state
assembly – that ostensibly would have helped Congress rebels – has accentuated
the debate that Governors office has been ‘abused’ in the past and is again
being abused. Rajkhowa in fact joins the illustrious (sic) league of past
Governors in northeastern states who had their share of controversy.
Romesh
Bhandari had made news in Tripura while the likes of Oudh Narayan Shrivastava
and M M Thomas had their share of the cake in Manipur and Nagaland
respectively. But talking about Arunachal Pradesh and the latest
round of controversy, one finds a sense in the words of BJP state unit president Tai Tagak who
says, “The recent political drama in Arunachal Pradesh presented the
people of the state in poor light”. Defection
is a menace in the politics of northeastern states. If such unscrupulous
defections of the law makers continue, can the people of these states project
the good image of the region in this manner?
But was the Governor right
in his decision? His order has been put on stay by the Guwahati High Court. Exercising
his powers as provided under Article 174 (Clause 1) of the Constitution,
Governor Rajkhowa had summoned the House. His office maintains that Governors
enjoy discretionary powers.
![]() |
| Democracy=Power |
However, the Guwahati High Court
had stayed the decision of the Governor to hold the proceedings of the House in
the makeshift premises. Predictably the episode provided yet
another ammunition to the Congress in Rajya Sabha to stall the proceedings. But
the bigger controversy on the role and powers of the Governors remain.
To state
a truism, this is an age old syndrome since 1960s and has hardly been attended
to effectively. In the words of eminent jurist, Soli Sorabjee,
andhad spoken in different context earlier – “it will be no exaggeration to say
that no institution or constitutional office in the country has suffered
greater erosion than the office of the Governor”.
The text book makes it clear that a Governor of a
state is a constitutional representative and not subject to the dictates of the
centre. But as because he/she holds the office till the pleasure of the
President of India – the central government irrespective of party affiliations
has been trying to force the Governors play its game. This brings us to the
crux of the issue – on what really needs to be done to change the system.
























