Published: Publish Date – 12:25 AM, Tue – 12 Apr 22
Vanam Jwala by Narasimha Rao
The Governor of Telangana met the Prime Minister and the Union Home Minister, and later addressed the media that (his) government was not giving him due respect. He also mentioned violation of protocol. The governor further said that since she was not satisfied with the government’s recommendation to nominate Kaushik Reddy as MLC, she kept the issue pending. The media also reported quoting the governor that if she wanted, the government would have fallen and everything would be decided by the people.
The position and position of the Governor, which is an important institution in Indian cooperative federalism, has been the subject of criticism since its inception. Our country has a great reputation for the dismissal of the first elected communist government led by EMS Namboodiripad in Kerala in 1959 by Burgula Ramakrishna Rao as governor despite an absolute majority. Thereafter, this happened several times in both Congress and non-Congress rule.
executive powers
The chief minister of a state is the democratically elected chief executive. All executive powers are under his control. According to the Constitution, the Governor is appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. A cursory glance may reveal that the powers and responsibilities of the Governor are more or less similar to those of the President. But, it is not so at all. The framers of the constitution envisioned that the governors use the powers and responsibilities assigned to them through the constitution to keep the country united in the spirit of cooperative federalism.
However, some of them had, over a period, misused these powers in connivance with the Central Government. In any state, the government which is in power is the government of the governor and whatever the governor wants in the state, he can directly contact the chief minister and get it done. This is what happens at the centre.
comparison of powers
It may be interesting to compare the powers of the Governor at the state level and that of the President at the Centre. An academic discussion advocates that it is the President who is supreme and more powerful than the Prime Minister. Governors do not have such great powers. If one considers the fundamentals, before actually going into the specifics, the President is elected by the elected representatives of the Lok Sabha and State Legislatures as well as the Rajya Sabha, while the Prime Minister is only the leader of the majority party. Lok Sabha! Thus, of course, the President is more representative in character. The prime minister, however, is the elected chief executive. In the case of the Governor, it is only a nominated body whereas the Chief Minister is a democratically elected person who represents the people at large.
Constitutional pundits often cite the experience of Britain, the model adopted by India. But the fact is that India did not fully adopt the British model – it is partly parliamentary and partly presidential. Despite this, the beauty of the Constitution is that in the last 75 years so far, no President has ever abused or encroached upon the powers, spoke out against the government elected at the Center, which is in fact his own government, or Has not expressed displeasure. The main reason for this is that the person who is elected as the President is an acceptable person to the Prime Minister and the ruling party. Not so with governors. Irrespective of the fact whether the Governor is acceptable to the Chief Minister or not, the President appoints him on the advice of the Prime Minister. The person appointed as the Governor shall be one who shall, with exceptions, belong to the ruling party at the Centre.
According to the constitution the real “worker” is the President and not the Prime Minister. Article 74 speaks of a “Council of Ministers to aid and advise the President”. The role of the governor is similar in the states. The governor has no option but to accept the advice of the cabinet headed by the chief minister. Till date, every President has taken decisions on the basis of the advice of the Prime Minister. He rarely had differences with the prime minister in the case of Kaushik Reddy or the pro tem president of the council in Telangana.
the constitution says
The Constitution states that the Prime Minister shall be appointed by the President and other Ministers shall be appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister. In India, the occasion for the actual exercise of this power first emerged when Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan was the President who exercised his discretion and after Jawaharlal Nehru’s death appointed GL Nanda as Prime Minister even before the Congress indicated his choice. Radhakrishnan again followed the same procedure and appointed GL Nanda after the death of Lal Bahadur Shastri. However, on both the occasions, Nanda was merely the caretaker PM.
After the assassination of Indira Gandhi, President Zail Singh appointed her as Prime Minister even before Rajiv Gandhi was elected as the Parliamentary Leader of the Congress Party. As a result of the 1989 general elections, President R Venkataraman exercised his discretionary powers, inviting VP Singh after the Congress refused to form the government and then inviting Rajiv Gandhi and then Chandrasekhar after VP Singh’s resignation. Did. Though Neelam Sanjiva Reddy’s decision in 1979 to appoint Charan Singh was criticized, it soon cooled down as there was no alternative.
This is sufficient evidence that the Prime Minister and his Council of Ministers hold office at the pleasure of the President. The President can also exercise his discretionary power, which is enshrined in the Constitution, in dismissing a Prime Minister, even if he enjoys a majority in the Lok Sabha. If the Presidents had also resorted to dismissing governments at the Center by invoking discretionary powers, the way some governors in the states did, there is no estimation of what would happen to democracy in India.
During the democratic history of the last 75 years, no President, who was elected during one party in power and subsequently continued after a different party such as Neelam Sanjiva Reddy or Pranab Mukherjee came to power, has failed to discharge his duties. were not controversial, and they also worked closely. and amicably with the prime ministers. Why can’t appointed governors who are not as powerful as the President do this? Perhaps only constitutional experts will be able to consider this.
India is the only country among many countries that gained independence from British colonial rule, holds regular elections and changes governments at regular intervals, and remains the largest democratic nation in the world. Let’s hope this continues. It is better if the Governor follows in the footsteps of the President to maintain cordial relations with the elected executive heads to maintain the democratic spirit of the country.
(The author is Chief Public Relations Officer to the Chief Minister of Telangana)
Now you can get selected stories from here Telangana Today Feather wire Everyday. Click on the link to subscribe.
Click to follow Telangana Today facebook page And Twitter ,