It is an irony that due to the ambition of power, the game of forming and toppling the government which has been seen in the states in the recent decades, has raised many questions about the role of the Governor.
Somewhere contrary to the dignity of the post, the Governor is seen behaving as a political representative of the ruling government at the Centre.
It is not that this trend has emerged recently, The game has continued unabated since a few decades after independence.
This post has been misused from Congress to NDA governments to topple the governments of opposition parties in the state.
Realizing this crisis, the Supreme Court had to make strong remarks in the Maharashtra episode.
The Supreme Court made a strong comment on Wednesday that it is unfair to ask the governor to prove its majority in the situation of dissent in the ruling party. In such a situation, if the ruling party is asked to prove its majority due to differences, then the existence of the elected government may be threatened.
That is, the role of the Governor should not be an interference in this. In fact, five-judge constitution bench headed by CJI D Y Chandrachud remarked that if this is done, it will be a travesty of democracy.
It may be noted that the bench made this observation in the wake of the political crisis in the state last year following the rebellion led by Eknath Shinde in the undivided Shiv Sena.
Even then, the opposition had raised many questions regarding the role of the governor. In fact, the court made this scathing comment during the hearing on the petition filed regarding this crisis.
It is noteworthy that in the state assembly elections, BJP and Shiv Sena contested together.
Over time, the two parties parted ways over power-sharing and Shiv Sena, with fewer MLAs, formed the government with the support of some opposition parties.
The court made this scathing comment during the hearing on the petition filed regarding this crisis.
It is noteworthy that in the state assembly elections, BJP and Shiv Sena contested together. Over time, the two parties parted ways over power-sharing and Shiv Sena, with fewer MLAs, formed the government with the support of some opposition parties.
This fact is not hidden from anyone that after the formation of the Shiv Sena government in the state, the BJP has been directly and indirectly attacking the Shiv Sena government.
In this work, where there were allegations of use of government agencies in various controversies, at the same time questions were raised on the role of the Governor.
The state BJP got the benefit of being in power at the Centre. The bitterness between the Shiv Sena and the BJP, which were the oldest allies of the NDA, reached such an extent that it even played an indirect role in toppling the government.
It is a political wretchedness that people’s representatives elected under the banner of a party, in the allure of power and other facilities, change sides and side with the opponents of the original party.
This fact is not hidden from anyone that Eknath Shinde’s government in Maharashtra has remained in existence only with the support of BJP.
In true sense, the Apex Court, while pointing out these political malpractices, has said that asking the governor to prove majority due to dissatisfaction in any political party is indirectly destabilizing the government.
Overall, the court has given a message to maintain the dignity of this post along with highlighting the moral side of the role of the Governor.
However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Governor of Maharashtra, argued that there were several valid reasons, due to which the Governor had asked the Uddhav government to prove its majority in the House.
It also included a letter signed by 34 Shiv Sena MLAs. In which it was said to withdraw support from the then Uddhav Thackeray-led government.
Along with this, the leader of the opposition had demanded to prove the majority. Due to all these circumstances, the Governor had asked Thackeray to prove his majority in the House.
However, in spite of these arguments, there is a need for political correctness and waterless discretion of the Governor in difficult circumstances.