All you need to know about CM Narendra Modi vs Governor Kamala Beniwal clash

The CM as well as the Governor should display extreme caution, otherwise democracy may be in peril in the absence of restraint

Probably, Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi is likely to mobilise public opinion on his well-known slogan projecting the state as a hapless victim against the Delhi sultanate’s ‘arrogant’ tactics. These days Governor Kamala Beniwal has become a red rag to Modi. The entire conflict -- between Governor and government, between state law and constitutionality -- is rooted in a breach of constitutional logic.

 

On Monday, the Governor rejected and sent back the proposed Gujarat Lokayukta Commission Bill to the state Assembly. The new Bill seeks to give all powers regarding the appointment of the state Lokayukta to the Chief Minister, ending the role of the Governor and the Chief Justice of the High Court in appointing the ombudsman.

"I am of the view that the provisions of Gujarat Lokayukta Aayog Bill 2013 are detrimental to the interest of public welfare and the state legislature needs rethinking on the issues mentioned in the interest of the people of Gujarat," Beniwal said in the seven-page note sent with the Bill to the state government.

The Governor has said that the Gujarat Lokayukta Aayog Bill 2013 gave absolute powers to the Chief Minister and council of ministers, and under the new definition, the Lokayukta would be like a "caged parrot". 

 

The Bill, in order to become an act, has to receive the assent of the Governor. If the Governor is dissatisfied with the bill, he / she may return the same to the assembly for reconsideration.  But the governor will have to put his / her signature to the bill if it is sent to him by the legislature for a second time, with or without modifications.

 

The moot question is: Why Beniwal and Modi are at loggerheads? Political observers say that Beniwal is a senior Congress politician from Rajasthan and is being seen as a Congress loyalist in the Modi land.  Beniwal, who at 27 became Rajasthan’s youngest minister in 1954 and served in several ministries till she was appointed governor in 2009.

 

In 2011, Beniwal appointed Justice (retired) R.A. Mehta as the Lokayukta without Modi’s consent. The Chief Minister wrote to the Prime Minister to recall the governor and repeal the appointment of the Lokayukta for the state. The BJP government alleged that it was “breach of federal principles”. The state government felt that elected representatives, not nominated persons like governors, should have the last word.  In the past, Mehta was critical of the Modi government over the Narmada project and the 2002 riots.

 

The post was vacant for over eight years. Beniwal used the governor’s discretionary powers to break the deadlock.  However, Modi argued that Mehta’s appointment violated Article 163 of the Constitution, which states that the governor of a state must act on the advice of the council of ministers. 

 

Local Congress leaders believe that Modi is afraid of facing an ombudsman who could scrutinise the ‘corruption’ charges  levelled against his government, just like the Karnataka Lokayukta had examined and indicted former chief minister B.S. Yeddyurappa.

 

In January this year, the Supreme Court overruled Modi’s objections and upheld the appointment of the Lokayukta but reminded the governor that, barring exceptions, Raj Bhawan can act only on the aid and advice of the council of ministers. The nomination of retired judge Mehta was cleared by the apex court largely on the ground that the opinion of the high court chief justice should be given primacy. The apex court also expressed displeasure at  Beniwal’s claim that she could take independent decisions in making the appointment.

 

“The governor’s version of events, stated in her letter dated 3.3.2010, to the effect that she was not bound by the aid and advice of the council of ministers, and that she had the exclusive right to appoint the Lokayukta, is most certainly not in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution. It seems that this was an outcome of an improper legal advice and the opinion expressed is not in conformity with the rule of law. The view of the governor was unwarranted and logically insupportable,” the Supreme Court had said.

 

The Supreme Court  had added: “The governor is not answerable to either the House of state, or to Parliament, or even to the council of ministers, and his acts cannot be subject to judicial review. In such a situation, unless he acts upon the aid and advice of the council of ministers, he will become all powerful and this is an anti-thesis to the concept of democracy.”

 

“The facts of the case reveal a very sorry state of affairs, revealing that in the state of Gujarat, the post of the Lokayukta has been lying vacant for a period of more than nine years…. A few half-hearted attempts were made to fill up the post but for one reason or another, the same could not be filled.

 

“The present governor has misjudged her role and has insisted, that under the (1986) Act, the council of ministers has no role to play in the appointment of the Lokayukta, and that she could therefore, fill it up in consultation with the chief justice of Gujarat High Court and the leader of Opposition. Such attitude is not in conformity, or in consonance with the democratic set-up of government envisaged in our Constitution,” the bench had said. 

 

The SC also clarified that under the Indian Constitution, “the governor is synonymous with the state government and can take an independent decision upon his/her own discretion only when he/she acts as a statutory authority under a particular act or under the exception(s), provided in the Constitution itself”.

_________________________

What / who is Lokayukta?
_________________________
.  The Lokayukta is an anti-corruption authority (an ombudsman is an official, appointed by the government or by Parliament to represent the interests of the public). He works along with the Income Tax Department and the Anti-Corruption Bureau. 

_________________________

Which are the States that have Lokayukta?
_________________________

. Only 19 Indian States have Lokayukta. Maharashtra was the first State to introduce the institution of Lokayukta in 1971. There are no Lokayuktas in Arunachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura and West Bengal. 

_________________________

Who is appointed as Lokayukta?
_________________________

. The Lokayukta is usually a former high court chief justice or former Supreme Court judge and has a fixed tenure.

_________________________

What are his roles?
_________________________

. Any citizen can make his/her complaints of corruption directly to the Lokayukta against any government official or elected representative. Lokayukta’s power varies from state to state. In some states, the Lokayukta investigates into charges against public functionaries including chief minister, ministers and MLAs. .

_________________________

What are the drawbacks?
_________________________

. Lack of prosecution powers, adequate staff, funds and lack of independence are some of the limitation of the Lokayukta.