Related articles
The following is part of the debate held in the Constituent Assembly on the subject ‘State Governors’
Finalisation of Article 131
*Mr. President: It is only a question of the order in which the amendments are taken. I want to dispose of the question of election first.
Shri. T.T. Krishnamachari: The choice of the alternative may be left to the mover. Dr. Ambedkar may say which he proposes to move. Normally the procedure will be to move a particular Article. The Chairman of the Drafting Committee will be the person to make the choice, if you allow it to him, that will solve the problem. He might move one of the alternatives. This procedure is going to come in the way of normal procedure later on. So, I think the best thing is to leave the discretion to the mover. If you recognise Dr. Ambedkar as mover, then he may be asked to move one or other of the alternatives.
Mr. President: Is Dr. Ambedkar prepared to accept one of the other alternatives?
The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Sir, I want to say a word regarding procedure to be followed. Taking the Article 131, as it is, no doubt it is put in an alternative form. The two alternatives have one thing in common viz., that they propose the Governor to be elected. The form of election is for the moment a subsidiary question. As against that, there are three or four amendments here which set out a principle which is completely opposed to the two alternatives drafts of 131 and they suggest that the Governor should be nominated. If the amendment which proposes that the Governor should be nominated were to be accepted by the House, then both the alternatives would drop out and it will be unnecessary for the House to consider them. Therefore my suggestion would be that it would be desirable to take up No. 2010 of Mr. Gupte, and then Mr. Kamath and then No. 2015. If this matter was taken up first and the House came to the conclusion on whether the principle of appointment by the President should be accepted, then obviously there would be no purpose served in discussing Article 131 in either of its alternative forms. That would be my suggestion subject to your ruling in the matter.
Mr. President: There are several amendments which support the idea of election or appointment by President. The other amendments are regarding the method of election, First, I want to get rid of the question of election so that all amendments relating to method of election will go. Then we can take up the question of appointment and the appointment in that case will be by the president.
Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar (Madras: General): If the question of appointment or not is taken up first, that will automatically eliminate the election question. I agree with Dr. Ambedkar’s views in the matter.
***
*The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Bombay: General): Mr. President, Sir after such a prolonged debate on the amendment I think it is quite unnecessary for me to take the time of the House in making any prolonged speech. I have risen only to make two things clear; one is to state to the House the exact co-relation between the two alternatives that have been placed by the Drafting Committee before the House and amendment No. 2015 which has been debated since yesterday. My second purpose is to state the exact issue before the House, so that the House may be able to know what it is that it is called upon to bear in mind in deciding between the alternatives presented by the Drafting Committee and the new amendment.
Sir, the first alternative that has been put by the Drafting Committee is an alternative which is exactly in terms of the decision made by this House some time ago in accordance with the recommendations of a Committee appointed to decide upon the principle governing the Provincial Constitution. The Drafting Committee had no choice in the matter at all, because according to the directions given to the Drafting Committee it was bound to accept the principle which had been sanctioned by the House itself. The question, therefore, arises: why is it that the Drafting Committee thought it fit to present an alternative? Now, the reason why the Drafting Committee presented an alternative is this. The Drafting Committee felt, as everybody in this House knows, that the Governor is not to have any kind of functions—to use a familiar phraseology, “no functions which he is required to discharge either in his discretion or in his individual judgment.” According to the principles of the new Constitution he is required to follow the advice of his Ministry in all matters. Having regard to this fact it was felt whether it was desirable to impose upon the electorate the obligation to enter upon an electoral process which would cost a lot of time, a lot of trouble and I say a lot of money as well. It was also felt, nobody, knowing full well what powers he is likely to have under the Constitution, would come forth to contest an election. We felt that the powers of the Governor were so limited, so nominal, his position so ornamental that probably very few would come forward to stand for election. That was the reason why the Drafting Committee thought that another alternative might be suggested.
It has been said in the course of the debate that the argument against the election is that there would be a rivalry between the Prime Minister and the Governor, both deriving their mandate from the people at large. Speaking for myself, that was not the argument which influenced me because I do not accept that even under election there would be any kind of rivalry between the Prime Minister and the Governor, for the simple reason that the prime Minister would be elected on the basis of policy, because he could have no policy, not having any power. So far as I could visualise, the election of the Governor would be on the basis of personality: is he the right sort of person by his status, by his character, by his education, by his position in the public to fill in a post of Governor? In the case of the Prime Minister the position would be ; is his programme suitable, is his programme right? There could not therefore be any conflict even if we adopt the principle of election.
The other argument is, if we are going to have a Governor, who is purely ornamental, is it necessary to have such a functionary elected at so much cost and so much trouble? It was because of this feeling that the Drafting Committee felt that they should suggest a second alternative. Now, so far as the course of debate has gone in this House, the impression has been created in my mind that most speakers feel that there is a very radical and fundamental difference between the second alternative suggested by the Drafting Committee and this particular amendment. In my judgment there is no fundamental distinction between the second alternative and the amendment itself. The second alternative suggested by the Drafting Committee is also a proposal for nomination. The only thing is that there are certain qualifications, namely, that the President should nominate out of a panel elected by the provincial Legislature. But fundamentally it is a proposal for nomination. In that sense there is no vital and fundamental difference between the second alternative proposed by the Drafting Committee and the amendment which has been tabled by Mr. Brajeshwar Prasad. in other words, the choice before the House, if I may say so, is between the second alternative and the amendment. The amendment says that the nomination should be unqualified. The second alternative says that the nomination should be a qualified nomination subject to certain conditions. From a certain point of view I cannot help saying that the proposal of the Drafting Committee, namely that it should be a qualified nomination is a better thing than simple nomination. At the same time I want to warn the House that the real issue before the House is really not nomination or election.—because as I said this functionary is going to be a purely ornamental functionary; how he comes into being, whether by nomination or by some other machinery, is a purely psychological question—what would appeal most to the people—a person nominated or a person in whose nomination the Legislature has in some way participated. Beyond that, it seems to me it has no consequence. Therefore, the thing that I want to tell the House is this: that the real issue before the House is not nomination or election, but what powers you propose to give to your Governor. If the Governor is a purely constitutional Governor with no more powers than what we contemplate expressly to give him in the Act, and has no power to interfere with the internal administration of a Provincial Ministry, I personally do not see any very fundamental objection to the principle of nomination. Therefore my submission is……………..
Shri Rohini Kumar Chaudhari: Can he contemplate any situation, where a Governor—whether you call him a mere symbol or not—will not have the power to form the first Ministry? Will he not be competent to call upon any one, whether he has a big majority or a substantial minority? And that is a very big power of which he cannot be deprived under any circumstances.
The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Well that power an elected or a nominated Governor will have. If he happens to call the wrong person to form a Ministry, he will soon find to his cost that he has made a wrong choice. That is not a thing that could be avoided by having an elected Governor. Such a Governor may have a friend of his choice whom he can call in to form a Ministry and that issue can be settled by the House itself by a motion of no-confidence or confidence. But that is not the aspect of the question which is material. The aspect of the question which is material is , “Is the Governor going to have any power of interference in the working of a Ministry which is composed of a majority in the local Legislature? If that Governor has no power of interference in the internal administration of a Ministry which has a majority, then it is a wholly immaterial one. That is the way I look at it and I want to tell the House that in coming to their decision they should not bother with the more or less academic question—whether the Governor has to be nominated or to be elected—they should bear in mind this question: What are the powers with which the Governor is going to be endowed? That matter, I submit, is not before us today. We shall take it up at a later stage when we come to the question of articles 175 and 188 and probably by “amendment or the addition of some other clause which would give him powers. The House should be careful and watchful of these new sections that will be placed before them at a later stage. But today it seems to me, if the Constitution remains in principle the same as we intend that it should be, that the Governor should be a purely constitutional Governor, with no power of interference in the administration of the province, then it seems to me quite immaterial whether he is nominated or elected.
Shri L. Krishnaswami Bharathi: Is the honourable Member accepting the amendment?
The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: I am leaving it to the House.
Mr. President: I shall then put amendment 2015 moved by Shri Brajeshwar Prasad to the vote.
The question is:
“That for article 131, the following be substituted :—
‘131. The Governor of a State shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal.’”
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. President: I think after this all the other amendments to this article fall to the ground and therefore I shall put the article as amended to the vote.
Article 131, as amended, was added to the Constitution.
Source: Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches Vol. 13, published by Dr. Ambedkar Foundation, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India
