Ananda Bose’s charge against Speaker over swearing in of 2 MLAs has delayed the public representatives from discharging their duties toward their constituencies
The “constitutional apparatus” of the governor cannot be in conflict with the elected representatives of the people, is the bottomline that is fundamental to the structure of the state and its relationship with the government of the day.
In West Bengal, as also in other states, governors have increasingly found themselves embroiled in clashes with the government and now with the legislature.
Governor-govt row
West Bengal Governor CV Ananda Bose has picked another fight with the government by questioning the legality of the swearing in process of MLAs Sayantika Banerjee and Reyat Hossain Sarkar and asking them to pay a fine of ₹500 every day they attended Assembly proceedings including voting.
Bose’s notice has escalated the ongoing tussle over “constitutional impropriety” – a charge made by him against Speaker Biman Bose after the latter administered oath to Sayantika and Sarkar even though the Governor had charged the Deputy Speaker with the task – and violation of the constitutional apparatus.
It has grabbed the voter’s and by extension political attention, and unnecessarily forced the legislature to expend time and money on resolving the issue since June.
Vibrant democracy
Prolonging the issue of impropriety or confrontation any further would be inimical to the idea of elected representation in a vibrant democracy, of which West Bengal is just one location.
Fuelled by an absence of confidence in the intentions of the Governor and, reciprocally, the Governor’s absence of confidence in the Speaker of the state Assembly, Biman Banerjee, triggered the impropriety issue.
Swearing-in hierarchy
The two MLAs, both from the Trinamool Congress, were elected in the June bypolls – Sayantika Banerjee from Baranagar and Reyat Hossain Sarkar from Bhagawangola Assembly constituencies – but had to wait to be sworn as legislators.
The Governor asked them to show up at the Raj Bhavan on June 26 to be sworn in. The problem was, he failed to specify who would administer the oath.
The Constitution, precedents and convention dictate that the Governor is sworn in by the Chief Justice of the High Court. In turn, the Governor, swears in the Chief Minister and Council of Ministers. A pro-tem speaker swears in the Speaker, and the latter administers oath to the members of the legislature.
The country saw days of Om Birla swearing in Members of Parliament.
Who is answerable for delay?
The question is by what logic did Governor Bose designate Deputy Speaker, Asish Banerjee, to administer oath to the two MLAs when the Speaker is entirely capable of doing so?
The question, delays and the conflict over the constitutional propriety of the Deputy Speaker declining to do so, and therefore the Speaker administering the oath, has roiled West Bengal politics. The point is that the delay, as the elected legislators correctly pointed out, has prevented them from assuming formal responsibility as representatives of the people from Baranagar and Bhagawangola.
The question is not limited to the imbroglio over oath and impropriety; it contains a much larger question, which is – who gets to decide on how a mandate by the people is fulfilled.
It also contains the issue of why a governor, who has dramatically iterated on several occasions that he believes his role is to defend the people of West Bengal, protect them and deliver justice to the wronged, would do anything that prevents the people from being represented.
Governor crossed ‘Lakshman Rekha’
In other words, who represents the people? Who is accountable to the people?
It cannot be the governor, who is not elected and is a nominee of the Centre in the state. It does not matter that the Sarkaria Commission report described him as the “lynchpin” of the constitutional apparatus and that the role of the governor has been “one of the key issues in Union-state relations.”
Crossing the ‘Lakshman Rekha’, a key concern of Governor Bose, is an avoidable error.
By his actions, the Governor seems to have done just that by creating obstacles, instead of removing them, to enable elected legislators from getting on with their jobs.
After the July 10 by elections for the Raiganj, Bagdah, Ranaghat Dakshin and Maniktala assembly constituencies, the swearing in issue has acquired urgency.
Collision with ruling party
For a governor who deems his job to be responsible as a “friend, philosopher and guide to the elected government,” postponing an elected representative from doing her job is a puzzling contradiction.
More so, when Governor Bose has expanded his responsibility to “intervene,” by his own admission in the law and order situation by opening a ‘Peace Room’, armed with a helpline for victims of post poll violence to register their complaints.
Since the nature of the complaint is violence, then presumably the state administration is not doing its job to protect the victims and prevent further violence, requiring the governor to cross the line that bestows on government the responsibility of maintaining law and order.
Collision course
Going public on collision with ruling parties in states has become a standard practice for governors.
The trend has gained momentum after years of political confrontation over the intervention of governors, which have led to the dismissal of elected governments in about five dozen states from 1953 onwards, including West Bengal, and row over how governors have hastily sworn in chief ministers without confirming their parties or coalitions have the necessary majority, as seen in Maharashtra in 2019.
The outcomes of such reports have not added up to much in recent decades, because the governor’s reports filed to the Union Minister of Home Affairs and the President have not been followed up with action.
Elected governments in Kerala, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Delhi have wrestled with governors and lieutenant governors, and there has been litigation and orders from the Supreme Court, but nothing more.
Politically risky
Clearly, Union Home Ministers and Presidents have preferred to proceed with caution. Dismissing an elected government is politically risky for the party in power at the Centre, and therefore strictly avoidable as the consequence could be a political fiasco.
The West Bengal Governor’s actions are at best episodes of brinkmanship designed to roil the elected government without resulting in political consequences for the BJP and its government at the Centre.
If noise and thunder is what the imbroglio in West Bengal or any other states where governors are at odds with ruling state parties is, then it is time to remember what Mahatma Gandhi said about these office bearers – they should do “nothing.”
It is equally relevant to recall that a former Odisha Chief Minister, Bishwanath Das, said in the constituent assembly that the constitutional apparatus was to “have democracy from toe to neck and autocracy at the head.”
(The Federal seeks to present views and opinions from all sides of the spectrum. The information, ideas or opinions in the articles are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Federal.)
