In this episode of Editorial, Mr. Sujit Nair explains the Supreme Court’s strong remarks against Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi for not approving 10 key bills. The court called his actions “illegal” and “arbitrary.” Mr. Nair also looks at how some governors across the country seem to be acting with personal motives instead of working in the interest of their states.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
[00:00:00] Namaskar! Welcome to another episode of Editorial. Early this week, the Supreme Court gave a mouthful to Arn Ravi. Arn Ravi, the Governor of Tamil Nadu. Arn Ravi was asked as to why? Why did you withhold assent to 10 bills in Tamil Nadu Assembly? Why?
[00:00:28] Your decision, the court said, was illegal and arbitrary. Illegal and arbitrary. Now, of course we are going to discuss that but my editorial today, I want to kind of ponder with you as to why do we have Governors? Why did our founding fathers wanted us to have a Governor in this Constitutional Hierarchy? Why did they recommend to have a Governor?
[00:00:59] What was his role? What was he or she supposed to do for us? How was he or she supposed to help our democracy or help our people? That's what we are going to discuss. Let's get right into the show.
[00:01:17] Now, the Supreme Court said that Governor Arn Ravi's decision to withhold assent to 10 key bills is illegal and arbitrary. In fact, the Supreme Court went on to say that the action of the Governor to reserve the 10 bills for the President is illegal and arbitrary. Thus, the action is set aside.
[00:01:44] All action taken by the Governor to the 10 bills are set aside. These bills shall be deemed to be cleared from the date it was represented to the Governor. The court said you failed to assent. We are going to set your decision aside and we will deem that these bills are approved or cleared from the date it was represented to you.
[00:02:11] Which means the court literally said, this is my understanding. The court literally said that you are not doing your work Mr. Governor. You are going against the people of Tamil Nadu, Mr. Governor because if you don't assent bills, bills will not turn into act and then why do you need an assembly? So, you are completely putting the policy paralysis on the assembly. Assembly is dysfunctional.
[00:02:35] Imagine if the Governor doesn't clear the bill. Now, let me tell you, the Governor, there are three basic roles for the Governor. First role is to give assent for bills. Now, if he doesn't give assent to the bills, he has power enough to withhold the assent, withhold his approval for a reasonable time.
[00:02:58] That power he has. Or he can return the bill saying that no you reconsider the bill and get back to me. I find this is a problem. That can't be arbitrary. There has to be constitutional reason for why he is rejecting. Or finally, he can say, okay, there is no agreement between you and me. That is the state government and me. So, what we will do is, we will put it for the President's approval.
[00:03:23] President's point of view on this. So, these are the four things he normally does. He or she, the Governor. But ascending, not giving, withholding, they ascend on 10 bills. Which technically means that, then why are we going to assembly everyday, these MLA's? Why are the taxpayers paying money? Why do we even have an assembly? Because whatever bills that will come to the Governor, if he withholds the assent,
[00:03:50] Kha-tam, ho-gaya. Parliament with the assembly will come and go. Nothing is really going to happen. No acts are going to be made. No laws are going to be passed. Imagine what a disservice. Imagine the disservice that, that Governor can cause that state. And that is what the court said. Or that is what the court, to my mind, that is what I derive from the court's judgment. It is illegal and arbitrary. Arbitrary.
[00:04:18] Arbitrary, I mean, manmarzi. Kuch bhi. I feel, so I hate Hindu. Ne laga. I don't feel like it. So, I am not giving. Arbitrary. Now, R.N. Ravi has always been a problem case. And the relation between M.K. Stalin and R.N. Ravi has been disastrous. Day one. You see, the problem is, a Governor is supposed to be the head of the state, literally, actually.
[00:04:47] When the Governor refers to his state and the government of his state, regardless of whichever party the Governor belongs to or the state government is, he says, my government. He owns, he takes the ownership of that. He is there to facilitate the government process. He is there to advise the government process. He is there to encourage the government. That is his job. Technically, that is his job.
[00:05:17] He is not a political leader there. He does not go to give bhasans there. He does not need to go and become a hero there because that is not what his job is. He does not need to win any elections. A Governor doesn't win an election and become a Governor. He is nominated because he is closer to the ruling party for whatever reason. This man was an IPS officer.
[00:05:40] You see, that is how he becomes a Governor. The point that I am trying to make is, somewhere down the line, this entire relationship between the Governor and the state has been destructed. It has been degenerated.
[00:05:57] Now, the reason I wanted to do this editorial, although this topic is a little old, the reason I wanted to do this editorial is because I was pondering as to why did we even think of having a Governor? What was the constitutional need for a Governor in a state? Why couldn't the Chief Minister directly present to the President? Why was this Governor required?
[00:06:22] Now, the thing is, the question that I asked today or a lot of people asked today was asked even then. I will start with Jawaharlal Nehru. You see, Jawaharlal Nehru, though he favoured that there has to be a Governor because there has to be some non-political head to a government,
[00:06:42] and he had very categorically suggested that the appointment of the Governor should be from eminent academicians or from outside of politics for clear and other outstanding impartial people from other walks of life.
[00:06:55] He said, Baba, don't make politicians as governor. Let there be an eminent academician or outstanding impartial people, anybody but not a politician. Let them be Governor, so that you can have an impartial outside view who heads the state.
[00:07:14] You see, Jai Prakash Narayan wanted Governors to be appointed by the President out of a Panel of Four people selected by the Assembly and the Members of the Parliament of the concerned state. That too is a very good idea. Jai Prakash Narayan said that, listen, let the President select the Governor, but let that Governor be from, that selection be from a Panel of Four.
[00:07:42] These Four people are people who are nominated, approved by the MLS and the MPs of that particular state. So that state gets some say as to who the Governor should be. Not that the Governor says A and the State says B. The State is gunning for some particular principles that that particular government has promised its people and the Governor is going completely radically different.
[00:08:07] And the State is following one political ideology, the Governor is following another. The State is run by one particular political party and wants to promote that particular party and the Governor wants to promote another party from the center. That is what the Governor is doing. So you have a political issue right in the center of the Governance itself. So Jai Prakash Narayan said that, listen, you know what, let there be a merger, let even the State decide who the Governor is with the President. Finally the President nominates.
[00:08:38] That was not followed. Okay, Dr. Babasai Ambedkar said, you know, there are a lot of issues, a lot of people who said that, listen, why don't we vote a Governor? Why can't there be an election for the Governor? Babasai Ambedkar to that said that, you know, Governor is just a figure of nominal head. We should not spend time and money on his elections. He said, the central government should always consult Chief Minister before appointing Governors.
[00:09:04] This is what Ambedkar had said. So look at it, three views. One is where Jawala Nehru said that, listen, you know what, you want to make Governors, no? Make Governors anybody but not politician. Eminent educationist people, eminent people, make them Governors, not politicians. So you will get an impartial Governor in your State.
[00:09:26] Jay Prakash Narayan said that, listen, another idea would be to have four, panel of four, out of which one the President chooses. The four-member panel is chosen by the MPs and the MLA's of the State. And, Dr. Babasai Ambedkar says that, let the central government choose the Governor but with consent of the State for which the central government is choosing the Governor.
[00:09:52] You see, all these three were not followed. So the riders, the recommendations were not followed. The Governor still there. The huge Raj Bhavan happens at taxpayers' money. And what does this Raj Bhavan Governor do? Raj Bhavan Governor withholds ascent to bills.
[00:10:13] The government technically withholds the development of that State. Because these are the bills that turn into law and that is the law that is executed and that execution is what takes the State forward. That is the development of the State. Now, I am not saying that, listen, you know what, every time it's only the Governor, the Chief Minister are always right. I am not saying all of that.
[00:10:34] But, somewhere down the line, this Governor has a, is katti with Chief Minister, Chief Minister is katti with government. These are things that we as people are not bothered about. It is not our botheration. Do we get to stay in Raj Bhavan? No, no. We pay them to stay in Raj Bhavan. Why? Because they should sort their problem. Let us be very clear about it. So, when intellectuals sit in this room and talk about, you know, the fact is this law and this constitution, listen, hello,
[00:11:01] we have done our job. That is over. We have done our job. Now, you don't get along with your Governor. Your Governor doesn't get along with you. Either change the Governor or if you can, change the Chief Minister. If you can't, then it is easier to change the Governor. Get a Governor who can get along with the Chief Minister.
[00:11:20] Because that Chief Minister has been elected by the State, the people of the State. Or when you are sending a Governor, make it mandatory that the Governor has to, in some form or another, get along with the Chief Minister. You see, these, these IS officers, I think the Governor should learn from them.
[00:11:42] You know our bureaucrats? One day, a bureaucrat who is handling some city as Commissioner of that city is picked up and put into animal husbandry overnight. He must have not seen an animal closely in his entire life, but he is put as some Director or some Managing Director of some Animal Husbandry Corporation of that particular State or that, or our country.
[00:12:08] The man goes into a completely new environment. It is not that he gets a red carpet welcome. There are a lot of people who will resist him. But he works around them. Finally, by the time he settles in, that entire team is cohesive. Whatever methodology applies. Whatever methodology she takes.
[00:12:28] But at least the conditions are cohesive. They work together. If a bureaucrat can do it, why a Governor can't? And the Governor, end of the day, a nominated position, just been given, gifted to him, at our tax money, gifted to him, causing problems for the people itself. The people itself who is paying for all the benefits that he or she is enjoying. How fair is that?
[00:12:56] So two points I wanted to make here. One is that it is not that our founding fathers didn't think that, you know, or never thought of the problems that, you know, Governor could create. It is not that they knew the problems. They had also recommended solutions. We didn't accept any of those solutions because it didn't suit our political will. It didn't suit our political will. We didn't accept those recommendations. That's something that I want you to be mindful of.
[00:13:21] Second thing is, a Governor today goes to a state, not with the development of that state in mind, but the development of his political party in mind. He wants to infuse his political ideology, his political party, his political party's power. That's his job.
[00:13:42] He goes there, possibly, this is the way I see it, is my opinion. He goes there to ensure that he consolidates his political party in that particular state, rather than to sit there at that huge Raj Bhavan and ensure that the people of that state who pays for that Raj Bhavan, who pays taxes to ensure that he or she gets the kind of privilege he and she gets, to ensure that those people benefit out of it.
[00:14:10] That's the point I wanted to make through this editorial. Till I see you next time, that's on Monday at 10. Namaskar.