By Lokendra Malik
Our Constitution is a constructive one. There is no room for absolutism. There is no space for anarchy. Sometimes it is argued, though, in a different context, that one can be a ‘rational anarchist’, but the said term has no term in the constitutional governance and the rule of law. Fulfilment of constitutional idealism ostracizing anything that is not permissible by the language of the provisions of the Constitution and showing to its spirit and silence with a sense of reawakening to the vision of the great living document is, in fact, constitutional renaissance,” observed Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra in his judgment in the famous Delhi government case in 2018.
Today, these words are relevant for West Bengal and Kerala, where the governors and chief ministers are at odds on various issues, including their constitutional relationship and the exercise of powers. Their differences have been in the public domain. Several constitutional pundits, political thinkers and commentators rightly opine that a governor and chief minister should maintain cordial relations to perform their constitutional duties and advance constitutional renaissance in the democratic order.
Last month, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee had blocked Governor Jagdeep Dhankhar on Twitter. She was annoyed with him as he had become a habitual critic of her government and did not hesitate to air his differences in public and on social media platforms like Twitter.
“Every morning and evening, the governor is accusing and attacking us. As if he is the supreme and we are bonded labourers. I cannot take it. I have blocked him today on Twitter,” Banerjee said in a press conference. She also accused the governor of obstructing the functioning of her government. “We have been patiently suffering for the past year. The governor has not cleared several files. He is keeping every file pending. How he can speak about policy decisions?” Banerjee also said that she had written several letters to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Ram Nath Kovind to remove the governor. But blocking him on Twitter is not the solution. The chief minister must follow constitutional means to express her objections against gubernatorial excesses.
Dhankhar responded to her critical remarks in these words:
“Dialogue and harmony amongst constitutional functionaries is the essence and spirit of democracy and mandate of the Constitution. This can blossom with mutual regard and respect. There has been all through personal regard for you from my side. I am sure this will receive your thoughtful consideration.”
Also Read: On the Wrong Track?
But Banerjee stood her ground and did not unblock him. She also stopped meeting the governor. Unhappy with this attitude, Dhankhar wrote her a letter a few days ago and called her for interaction at the Raj Bhavan. “Dialogue, discussion, and deliberation, particularly amongst constitutional functionaries, like the chief minister and the governor, are quintessential to democracy and an inseparable part of constitutional governance. All my earnest efforts in this direction have unfortunately not fructified in view of the stance at your end. Such a scenario has the potential to lead to a constitutional stalemate which we both are ordained by our oath to avert. There has been no response, now for long, to issues legitimately flagged and in respect of which there is a constitutional duty at your end under Article 167 of the Constitution to impart information. There are other worrisome aspects also which call for urgent consultations,” said Dhankhar in his letter.
Apart from these incidents, the governor also returned Banerjee’s recommendation to summon the session of the assembly on March 7. He took to Twitter and said he had returned the file for constitutional compliance. “Hon’ble CM Mamata Banerjee’s recommendation to summon assembly on March 7 had to be returned for constitutional compliance as Governor summons assembly on the recommendation made by the Cabinet after due compliance of Rules of Business under Article 166(3) of the Constitution,” Dhankhar tweeted. He added that “the file had endorsement only of Chief Minister. There was no Cabinet decision. In this situation, the only option I had was to send the file back to the government so that they send it back with constitutional compliances. As and when the government file will come, the matter will be considered in accordance with the Constitution”. The governor seems too Twitter-friendly, but this kind of communication ought to be made in private, not on social media platforms.
In addition, the governor of Kerala too has been critical about the working of the Pinyari government on several occasions. Governor Arif Mohammad Khan recently brought out his differences with the chief minister over the issue of university affairs in public domain. He has also made comments on some political issues like the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, etc. He doesn’t spare any opportunity to show his loyalty towards the political masters who installed him in the gubernatorial office. He also criticised the government regarding its interference in university matters.
Admittedly, a governor is not a rubber stamp, but he cannot intervene in the government’s affairs just because he is a nominee of the centre. He must be mindful that the people gave the mandate to the chief minister to run the state, not to him.
Also Read: The Yogi & His Moves
In a representative democracy, the chief minister, along with his colleagues, is collectively responsible to the assembly which has the power to express its no-confidence in the elected government. The Constitution does not empower the governor to scrutinise the functioning of the elected government except in the cases where the latter overrides constitutional provisions.
It is well known that Khan hardly spares an opportunity to intervene in the Kerala government’s affairs. A few days ago, he refused to sign a policy statement prepared by the state government on some administrative issues. Thankfully, the chief minister convinced him to approve it. He also convinced Khan to continue as chancellor of universities in the state.
Such confrontations need to be averted in the interest of our parliamentary democracy. The time has also come for the president to consider persuading governors to restore dialogue and communication with the respective chief ministers. The governor is the constitutional head of the state. At the same time, the chief minister is the real head of the government whose voice prevails in parliamentary democracy. But the chief minister must also listen to the governor’s views and respect his high constitutional office because the Constitution assigns certain functions and duties to the governor to preserve, protect, and defend it.
The governor is the main link between the centre and the state. He has the constitutional right to seek any information relating to the state’s affairs from the chief minister as per Article 167 of the Constitution. The latter is duty-bound to furnish him such information, which will be useful to brief the president.
Also Read: Emasculated Tribunals
No governor can be justified in criticising the policies and decisions of an elected government on social media platforms. If he finds something objectionable with the functioning, policies and decisions of the elected government, he has the constitutional right and duty to communicate his views to the chief minister and the latter is duty-bound to consider them. The governor has no reason to use his Twitter handle as a megaphone for his dissatisfaction against the elected government.
Sometimes there may be genuine differences between the constitutional functionaries on certain issues, but these should never be made public. All constitutional functionaries should maintain the courtesy and dignity in their respective areas, given the fundamental objectives of constitutional morality. There should always be a constitutional trust between them and they must strengthen them to serve the people who are sovereign in a democracy. This is how the constitutional authorities can advance the constitutional renaissance in a democratic society.
The constitutional relationship among high constitutional functionaries should be bound by constitutional propriety, courtesy and decorum. Therefore, Chief Minister Banerjee and Dhankhar may consider a chat over tea at Raj Bhavan.
Let me conclude with these poetic lines of famous Urdu poet Nida Fazli: “Dushmani lakh sahi khatam na kije rista, dil mile ya na mile, hath milate rahiye (Despite all the enmity and whether hearts meet or not, at least hands should be shaken)”.
—The writer is an advocate, Supreme Court