On Appointment and Removal of Governors

Given the status and importance conferred by the Constitution on the office of the Governor and taking into account his key role in maintaining Constitutional governance in the State, it is important that the Constitution lays down explicitly the qualifications or eligibility for being considered for appointment. Presently Article 157 only says that the person should be a citizen of India and has completed 35 years of age. The Sarkaria Commission approvingly quoted the eligibility criteria that Jawaharlal Nehru advocated and recommended its adoption in selecting Governors.

These criteria are:

a. He should be eminent in some walk of life.

b. He should be a person from outside the State.

c. He should be a detached figure and not too intimately connected with the local politics of the States; and

d. He should be a person who has not taken too great a part in politics generally and particularly in the recent past.

The words and phrases like "eminent", "detached figure", "not taken active part in politics" are susceptible to varying interpretations and parties in power at the Centre seem to have given scant attention to such criteria. The result has been politicization of Governorship and sometimes people unworthy of holding such high Constitutional positions getting appointed. This has led to some parties demanding the abolition of the office itself and public demonstration against some Governors in some States. This trend not only undermines Constitutional governance but also leads to unhealthy developments in Centre-State relations.

The Central Government should adopt strict guidelines as recommended in the Sarkaria report and follow its mandate in letter and spirit lest appointments to the high Constitutional office would become a constant irritant in Centre-State relations and sometimes embarrassment to the Government itself.

Governors should be given a fixed tenure of five years and their removal should not be at the will of the Government at the Centre. The phrase "during the pleasure of the President" in Article 156(i) should be substituted by an appropriate procedure under which a Governor who is to be reprimanded or removed for whatever reasons, is given an opportunity to defend his position and the decision is taken in a fair and dignified manner befitting a Constitutional office.

It is necessary to provide for impeachment of the Governor on the same lines as provided for impeachment of the President in Article 61 of the Constitution. The dignity and independence of the office warrants such a procedure. The "pleasure doctrine" coupled with the lack of an appropriate procedure for the removal of Governors is inimical to the idea of Constitutionalism and fairness. Given the politics of the day, the situation can lead to unpleasant situations and arbitrariness in the exercise of power. Of course, such impeachment can only be in relation to the discharge of functions of the office of a Governor or violations of Constitutional values and principles.