Former Supreme Court Judge Justice Rohinton Nariman emphasizes that politicians should not be appointed as Governors and calls for strong constitutional conventions to uphold democracy and protect State governance in India.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KOLKATA: Former Supreme Court Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman has sparked an important discussion on the role of Governors in India and the need for constitutional conventions to safeguard the democratic mandate of State governments. Speaking at the Seventh MK Nambyar Endowment Lecture at the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Justice Nariman highlighted how the Governor’s office, while constitutional in design, can sometimes undermine elected governments if misused.
Justice Nariman stressed the importance of the Governor’s oath, which requires them to “abide by the Constitution and look after the people.” He warned against appointing politicians with party affiliations as Governors, saying:
“You cannot appoint a person who is going to violate his oath immediately. You cannot appoint a politician who belongs to your party, for example. So establish a healthy convention saying no such person can be appointed.”
He further proposed accountability measures for Governors, noting:
“Suppose a Governor blatantly violates the Constitution and, instead of assenting to ten bills, sends all ten bills to the President. The Court castigated such action, but despite this, we do not see any removals… Either the Court does it, or you establish a convention that once a constitutional court like a High Court or the Supreme Court castigates a Governor, the Centre must remove him.”
Article 156 of the Constitution allows a Governor to hold office “during the pleasure of the President,” effectively making them subject to hire-and-fire by the Centre. Justice Nariman pointed out the contrast with the President’s tenure:
“In effect, this means hire and fire at will.”
He emphasized that establishing strong conventions would require a real two-party system, noting:
“I would firmly wish that certain constitutional conventions be laid down. This can only happen if a party in opposition becomes the party in power, and vice versa. It cannot happen if things continue as they have since 2014.”
Justice Nariman highlighted the Supreme Court’s April 8 ruling, which clarified the timelines and procedures for Governors and the President regarding bills passed by State legislatures. He warned against delay tactics, saying:
“Neither a Governor nor the President can sit indefinitely on a bill in order to defeat the legislative process. Every action must be performed within a reasonable time.”
He also underscored the judiciary’s role in reviewing Presidential or gubernatorial inaction:
“If, ultimately, the President withholds assent, that is not an action beyond judicial scrutiny. It is not correct to treat such a ‘killing’ of a bill as immune from review.”
Justice Nariman concluded by stressing the importance of conventions to make the Constitution a living, functional framework:
“Ultimately, what matters is not only what the Constitution says, but how it is worked. If it is worked in a manner detrimental to the people, it is not worth having. If its gaps are filled by healthy conventions, then it becomes a living Constitution.”
