A governor-chief minister tussle is as old as the Constitution. There have been innumerable instances when the two fought over their powers or the lack of them. The problem does not usually arise when the ruling party at the Centre and in the state concerned is the same. When they are different, the governor often acts as if his job is to create as many obstacles as possible to the state government of which he is the constitutional head. Such governors have in the past used their power as the chancellor of state universities to needle the government. For the first time, a different ball game is on in Kerala, where Governor Arif Mohammed Khan wants to shed all his responsibilities as chancellor of the 15 universities in the state.
No, it is not because of a sense of renunciation that Khan has decided to distance himself from the universities. He realised that he had been taken for a ride only after he succumbed to governmental pressure to reappoint the vice-chancellor of Kannur University, Prof Gopinath Ravindran. The original plan was to appoint a new VC, as the incumbent had turned 60. The governor wants Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan himself to play the role of chancellor, as nobody would accuse him of politicising appointments in universities. Of course, Vijayan knows that the gubernatorial gesture is more to embarrass him, than to facilitate good governance in universities.
The situation has come to such a pass that all the files put up for approval by the chancellor, including even high court notices, are directed to the state secretariat for necessary action. Khan has a point when he says that it is not the constitutional duty of the governor to be a rubber stamp chancellor. The chancellor’s powers vest with the governor because the university Acts are drafted in such a manner. It is not easy for the chief minister to have all the university Acts to be amended to make himself the chancellor. The governor knows the CM’s limitations and that is why he is enjoying the upper hand at this juncture. That this flexing of muscles is not in the interest of the state universities is forgotten by both.
In Maharashtra, the game is the same, though the modus operandi is different. The government wants to curtail the powers of the governor. On Tuesday, the assembly passed the Maharashtra Public Universities (Third Amendment) Act, 2021 to make the Minister of Higher and Technical Education the pro-chancellor of universities. A reading of the Bill shows that the government’s aim is to cut the governor’s powers vis-a-vis state universities. The Bill specifically mentions the way vice-chancellors of state universities have to be appointed. It does not give the chancellor any leeway, for he is duty-bound to appoint the one whom the government has chosen. What Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari is being served is what his Kerala counterpart wants to be served.
Anyone who has an idea of the constitutional scheme of things knows only too well that the Bill passed by the Maharashtra legislature will finally reach the governor, whose signature is needed before it becomes the law of the land. Given the tussle between Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray and Koshyari, an early resolution of the problem is not in sight. Again, it is the interest of the state universities which will suffer. This is certainly not what the Constitution had envisaged when the post of governor as the representative of the President of India in every state was envisaged. It had two primary objectives to subserve; the continuity of the government and an authority to check that the elected government functions as per the Constitution.
In a democracy, it is the will of the people, as represented by the popularly elected government, that should prevail. Democracy does not mean unlimited freedom for the elected government. What it wants is the rule of law. Personalities should not matter under such a system. When the governor and the chief minister cannot come to terms for one reason or another as, for instance, in West Bengal, it is incumbent upon the Union government to fix the problem by transferring the governor to another state. In no case should the interest of the state suffer. It is time the home ministry addressed this issue. The sooner it is done, the better it will be for all the states concerned.
