The Issue of Political Appointees in Raj Bhavan: A Roadblock to Effective Governance?

Introduction

The recent move by Tamil Nadu and Kerala to approach the Supreme Court of India against the conduct of their Governors brings to light a recurring problem – the influence of political appointees in Raj Bhavan in delaying or even undermining the decisions made by elected regimes. This article delves into the significance, features, objectives, effects, and potential pros and cons of this issue, while also including an interesting fun fact.

Significance

The issue of political appointees in Raj Bhavan is significant as it raises questions about the role and authority of Governors in the implementation of laws and decisions made by elected governments. This issue has a direct impact on the functioning of the democratic system and can lead to a hindrance in effective governance.

Features

The main feature of this issue is the alleged delay or obstruction by Governors in granting assent to Bills passed by the legislature. Tamil Nadu has also expressed dissatisfaction with the inaction on proposals related to convicts’ remission, prosecution of former Ministers, and appointments to the State Public Service Commissions. Additionally, some Governors have displayed resistance towards amendments to university laws that aim to limit their power as chancellors or establish universities without their involvement.

Objectives

The objective of the article is to shed light on the practice of political appointees in Raj Bhavan obstructing or delaying decisions made by elected regimes. It aims to advocate for the recalibration of the role and functioning of Governors, particularly in their capacity as chancellors of universities. The article also urges the adoption of the recommendations made by the Justice M.M. Punchhi Commission on Centre-State relations to remove the burden of the chancellor role from Governors.

Effects

The effects of political appointees hindering the implementation of decisions can be detrimental to effective governance. It can lead to a lack of timely action on crucial matters that require the assent or approval of Governors. This delay can have far-reaching consequences, such as impacting the justice system, public administration, and overall development initiatives.

Pros and Cons

Pros:
1. Governors acting as a check and balance to prevent hasty or unconstitutional decisions.
2. The possibility of ensuring a fair and impartial decision-making process.

Cons:
1. Potential misuse of discretionary powers by Governors, leading to delays and obstruction of elected regimes’ decisions.
2. Undermining the power and authority of the elected government, thereby hampering the democratic process.

Fun Fact

Did you know that the role of Governors as ex-officio vice-chancellors of most universities is merely a practice and not a legal requirement? This misconception has led to Governors delaying the assent of Bills that seek to limit or remove their powers as chancellors.

Brief Summary | UPSC – IAS

Two Indian states, Tamil Nadu and Kerala, have filed complaints with the Supreme Court against the actions of their Governors, highlighting the issue of political appointees using their authority to delay or undermine decisions made by elected governments. The Governors have been accused of delaying the granting of assent to Bills passed by the legislatures and failing to act on proposals related to convicts, prosecutions, and appointments. Some Governors have also been criticized for blocking decisions and Bills that affect their own power, such as amendments to university laws that remove or limit their role as Chancellors. It is suggested that Governors should no longer serve as Chancellors of universities and that there should be a national prohibition on this. The absence of a time-frame for assent to Bills has allowed some Governors to effectively block legislation. The Supreme Court has reminded constitutional authorities of the need for immediacy in considering Bills. It is important for both Governors and states to make decisions prudently and within the confines of the Constitution, without abusing their discretionary powers.