CPM terms governor post a colonial hangover, wants it abolished

Communist Party of India (Marxist) General Secretary Sitaram Yechury described the post of governor as “superfluous” as he called for its abolition.

“In the pre-Independence period, there was the British regent, as the Viceroy's representative in each British province. But after Independence, states are no longer the subjects of the centre. So it is high time we re-started the discussion on whether governors are required,” Yechury told reporters on Sunday after the three-day Central Committee meeting of the party held here.

He said the governor was the representative of the President of India. Yechury said it was a legacy of the colonial rule. “Why should such a post be there in independent India where all right and responsibilities of the the centre and the states are meticulously delineated. When everything is so clearly defined, why should there be a governor whose only role is to submit a report to the centre,” the CPM general secretary said.

He also mentioned that there were innumerable instances of governors exceeding their brief, especially to impose central rule in states, and how the courts had intervened in time to put them in place.

Never before has a governor been so vocal about his or her differences with the state government. Governor Arif Mohammad Khan has publicly pulled up the Pinarayi government on three issues. The Assembly resolution against the Citizenship Amendment Act was the first to earn his wrath. The governor said the Assembly did not have the constitutional mandate to pass a resolution on an Act passed by the two houses of the Parliament.

Then, the governor refused to give his assent to an ordinance for the redrawing of local body wards. He asked what was the hurry when an Assembly session was just round the corner. Governor Khan was also enraged that the Kerala government had challenged the CAA in the Supreme Court without keeping him in the loop. He even sought an explanation from the state government, which parliamentary affairs minister A K Balan said the government was willing to give.

Through its mouthpiece Deshabhimani, the CPM has publicly taken a stand that the Governor was attempting to establish that states do not have independent powers and that they should wait for the governor's consent for carrying out even their basic Constitutional duties.

“The Constitution does not say that a government should inform the governor of all its decisions. This is laid down very clearly in Section 167 of the Constitution,” the Deshabhimani editorial had said.

Yechury once again asked the Governor to go through the constitution. “Re-read article 131 of the Constitution. It is clear that states need not have to take anyone's permission to take recourse to legal measures,” Yechury said in response to the governor's insistence that the government should have informed him before going to court.

As per the Article, whenever there is a dispute between centre and state government or between two or more states, then both the State government and Union government can approach the top court if the dispute involves a question of fact or law on which the existence of a legal right depends. Suits filed under Article 131 go directly to the Supreme Court and not through appeals from the lower courts.

The comments posted here/below/in the given space are not on behalf of Onmanorama. The person posting the comment will be in sole ownership of its responsibility. According to the central government's IT rules, obscene or offensive statement made against a person, religion, community or nation is a punishable offense, and legal action would be taken against people who indulge in such activities.