Of turncoats and Governor’s sanctity

The debate on the role of Governors began way back in 1959 when Indira Gandhi as President of All India Congress Committee (AICC) had pushed for the dismissal of the first democratically elected Communist government in Kerala. It was the first of its kind in that it was the first popular government headed by the Communist Party in the world.

When Indira Gandhi exerted pressure on her father, Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of independent India for dismissal of the Communist government, her husband, Feroze Gandhi, who championed the cause of freedom, called his wife a “fascist’ at a breakfast table at Teen Murti in the presence of Nehru (page 212 Feroze the forgotten Gandhi by Bertil Falk, a Swedish journalist).

Later, when the President’s Proclamation was issued, throwing out the Kerala government, Feroze Gandhi, at the Congress meeting without referring to the then State Governor’s role, warned, “Today in Kerala you (Congress) have forged the instrument of your destruction. If this instrument is not destroyed it is going to destroy us. That is all that I have to say.”

I have narrated the episode of how the democratically elected government was dismantled only to draw the attention of the role played by Andhra Pradesh/Telangana State Governor ESL Narasimhan during the reshuffle of Andhra Pradesh Cabinet. His action in administering the oath of office to the turncoats has violated the Constitution. The Speaker of AP Assembly and the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, who are considered to be the high priests of Constitution and have taken pledge to protect the Constitution, have virtually mauled it.

As per the provisions of the anti-defection law, the people’s representatives, who shift their loyalties to another party, run the risk of forfeiture of their representative status. However, in the two Telugu states of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, the anti-defection law is deliberately nullified by the Governor, who has administered the oath of office to the defected members.

It may be recalled in this connection that the apex court had come down heavily on the role of Governor and deprecated his role in playing politics and functioning against the spirit of Constitution (Rawath Vs State of Uttarkhand 2016 & Nabam Rebia & State of Arunachal Pradesh 2016).

The appointment of ministers is the prerogative of the Chief Minister and he shall make recommendations in his personal capacity and by no means, it shall be construed as a Cabinet decision. The Chief Minister shall exercise the prerogative within the framework of the Constitution. He is legally bound to select his own party members or neutral members, but not turncoats.

However, both the Chief Ministers of Telangana State and Andhra Pradesh are guilty of inducing defection from the Opposition parties by offering ministerial posts as a reward for their defection. The Governor is duty-bound to remind the Chief Ministers of this provision in the Constitution and shall ensure stoppage of horse-trading.

Article 191 speaks on disqualifications for membership. It says, “(1) a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the Legislative Assembly or the Council of the State….

“2) A person shall be disqualified for being a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State if he is so disqualified under the Tenth Schedule.

As per Article 192, if any question arises as to whether a member of a House of the Legislature of a State has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in Clause (1) of Article 191, the questions shall be referred for the decision of the Governor and his decisions shall be final.

But before giving any decision on any such question, the Governor shall obtain the opinion of the Election Commission and shall act according to such opinion (Article 192(2)).

However, the present Governor has not only subjugated the Constitution to the Chief Ministers. It is nothing but encouraging further defections. Further, the role of AP Speaker in the entire episode has invited all-round condemnation.

The office of Speaker is considered to be a sacrosanct institution and great personalities like Moulvankar, Ananthasayanam Aiyangar, who adorned the office of Speaker in the 1950s, have brought great credibility and respect to the institution.

A Speaker’s role under the Tenth Schedule is limited to ascertaining the facts to disqualify the member and does not have any other right except this. Precisely for this reason, Speakers are delaying the decisions and enabling the ruling party to encourage defections from other parties with a view to meet their personal ambitions.

The Speaker at the first Assembly session at Amaravati had declared that the Opposition YSR Congress party has 66 MLAs. But he conveniently evaded the fact that 21 more MLAs, who were elected on the symbol of YSR Congress party, were sitting on the Treasury benches. What a clever idea!

If the situation is allowed to deteriorate further, one day the ruled may repent for letting the things to come to such a pass. (The writer is a former MLA from Vijayawada)

By Adusumilli Jaya Prakash