When the central government recently requisitioned the services of three senior police officials from Tamil Nadu state, everyone termed the decision “politically motivated.”
The chief ministers of 11 other Indian states rallied behind the ruling AIADMK party government of Chief Minister J. Jayalalitha in Tamil Nadu. They blamed Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s central government for violating the “norms governing center-state relations.”
The officers who have been asked to report for the central deputation are those who were involved in the highly-publicized arrest of DMK chief and former state Chief Minister K. Karunanidhi. The DMK is an ally of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA), which rules the country.
Obviously, the officers have been requisitioned by the central government at the behest of the DMK to punish them for arresting Karunanidhi and two of his lieutenants, who are also ministers in the Union Cabinet. This latest development should not be seen in isolation, but rather looked into from the very beginning. The central government’s decision to recall the then state Governor Fathima Beevi after Karunanidhi’s arrest was the first knee-jerk reaction and the officials requisition is the second.
By arresting DMK chief, Jayalalitha has virtually waged a war against the central government. Giving in to the collective mood within the NDA to assert the center’s authority vis-a-vis an unheeding Jayalalitha, the center had recommended to the president that he withdraw — as the constitution delicately puts it — his “pleasure from the state governor.” The Union Cabinet “felt” that the governor had failed to live up to the constitutional obligations of her office in the wake of the arrest of Karunanidhi and others.
Rather than to wait to be sacked, the governor herself sent in her papers. She said after resigning, “I upheld the honor of the governor’s office by quitting.” Thus Beevi, a former judge of the Supreme Court and a legal luminary, had an unceremonious exit from office.
It is sad to note that the same people who are rallying behind Jayalalitha over the “transfer” of three officers have kept silent on Beevi’s removal. If the officials are being victimized for their role in Karunanidhi’s arrest, Beevi has also been shown the door on the same pretext.
If the transfer of officials is politically motivated, Beevi’s removal was also unconstitutional and against the “norms of propriety”. It was an abuse of constitutional power, an assault on the federal structure and demeaning of the high office of the governor. The opposition and media should have raised the matter forcefully, but they did not — perhaps because Beevi was not a high-profile governor who had grabbed the post through her political affiliations. No doubt, governors hold office with the “pleasure of the president” but this does not imply that every whim and fancy of Union ministers are legitimate. Again, by terming Beevi as “incompetent to discharge the constitutional duties”, the government has established an unhealthy precedent: Political scapegoating.
It is alleged that Beevi had sent a report on the arrest drama to the center which reflected only the state government’s point of view. Here one thing must be kept in mind: in the Indian system, a governor has no independent machinery to a assess such a situation. Nor is the governor required to spy on the government. He has to trust the state government and seek reports on various issues — which is exactly what Beevi had done.
The center wanted her to submit a report saying there was a “breakdown of constitutional machinery in the state,” after Karunanidhi’s arrest, which would have paved the way for the imposition of president rule over the state. Beevi refused to dance to the tunes of the center and thus locked horns with it, and it is this that resulted in her subsequent removal.
The Vajpayee government was critical of Beevi for inviting Jayalalitha to form the state government after her landslide victory in the state assembly elections. The center wanted the governor to deny the leader of the largest single party in the house — Jayalalitha — her right to form the government, on the pretext of her court conviction. As Beevi, a former judge of the Supreme Court, knows the constitution more than many of the ministers at the center questioning her decisions. She actually did what the constitution says she should have done. Those who were raising eyebrows over the issue also knew that legally the governor had taken the right decision.
From that day, the central government waited for an opportune moment to settle old scores with Beevi. The center was presented with one after Karunanidhi’s arrest.
There is no denying that the “president’s withdrawal of pleasure” from the governor is legally valid if he is satisfied that she violated her charter. That, however, is hard to establish. After all, the constitution (Article 163) states the governor’s discretion cannot be questioned.
The misuse of the governor’s office for the repeated application of central rule has virtually banished the tribe called “independent governors.” While there were those like Beevi around, there was still some hope; but she also became a victim of the system. It would be a service to the nation if the Constitution Review Commission found out how often governors can independently send reports to the center and suggest a means of providing them immunity from assaults by the center on flimsy pretexts.
