Governors, speakers have been tools in govts’ hands to tackle Opposition | India News

NEW DELHI: The framers of the Constitution had envisaged neutral positions for governors and speakers and tasked them to ensure that governance in states and functioning of assemblies were carried out in accordance with the constitutional mandate.
But right from the day the Constitution came into force, both governors and speakers became instruments in the hands of the ruling dispensation at the Centre and states to subvert the democratic mode of governance and subjugate opposition parties.
While the whimsical dismissal of state governments by the Centre using the powers under Article 356 has abated considerably in the last two decades, incidents of speakers using the anti-defection law in a politically motivated manner to coercively stitch a majority have increased.
In Hargovind Pant vs Dr Raghukul Tilak & Ors. [(1979) 3 SCC 458], the Supreme Court had dealt with the nature of appointment of governors and ruled that “it is no doubt true that the governor is appointed by the President, which means in effect and substance the Government of India, but that is only a mode of appointment, and it does not make the governor an employee or servant of the Government of India”.
In the 1994 S R Bommai judgment, the SC had said, “The office of the governor is intended to ensure protection and sustenance of the constitutional process of the working of the Constitution by the elected executive and gives him an umpire’s role.”
It had criticised the governor’s role in imposition of president’s rule in Karnataka though the Bommai government had sought floor test to prove majority.
In the 2006 Rameshwar Prasad judgment, the SC had severely criticised the governor for unconstitutionally recommending imposition of president’s rule in Bihar with the sole intention of stalling JD(U) from staking claim to form government. “The governor is not an autocratic political ombudsman. If such a power is vested in the governor and/or the president, the consequences can be horrendous.”
In the 2016 Nabam Rebia judgment, a 5-judge bench of the SC had penned a stinging criticism of the Arunachal Pradesh governor for foisting political instability in the state and told governors to keep their eyes and ears shut to political machinations and resist temptations to jump into the “political thicket”.
Turning attention to the misuse of anti-defection law by speakers, the SC in the Rebia judgment had said: “It would be constitutionally impermissible for a speaker to adjudicate upon disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule, while a notice of resolution for his own removal from the office of speaker is pending.”
In the 2019 Srimant B Patil judgment, Justice N V Ramana-led 3-judge bench had expressed grave concern about the partisan role played by speakers. “We need to note that the speaker, being a neutral person, is expected to act independently while conducting the proceedings of the house or adjudication of any petitions. The constitutional responsibility endowed upon him has to be scrupulously followed. His political affiliations cannot come in the way of adjudication. If the speaker is not able to disassociate from his political party and behaves contrary to the spirit of neutrality and independence, such person does not deserve to be reposed with public trust and confidence.”
“There is a growing trend of speakers acting against the constitutional duty of being neutral. Additionally, political parties are indulging in horse- trading and corrupt practices, due to which the citizens are denied stable governments. In these circumstances, Parliament is required to reconsider strengthening certain aspects of the Tenth Schedule, so that such undemocratic practices are discouraged,” the SC had said.