Shikha Mukerjee | Law, politics & Raj Bhavans: Is a reckoning in the offing?

If it’s not showdown time yet, there are signs it’s coming. A constitutional crisis provoked by politics is brewing between some states, specifically those where parties in Opposition to the BJP and some governors in these states, appointed, alas, by the Central government headed by Narendra Modi.

In the interstices of the law, as laid down in the Constitution, is a space that is today a battleground between opposing interpretations, fundamental values and core principles. The BJP has acquired a reputation, like an indelible smear, much as the Congress did for its overuse and misuse of the notorious Article 356, under which Opposition-ruled state governments were dismissed.

One side’s perception of where the Constitution is silent has been seized as an opportunity by the other side to take advantage of what is not written in the text. In doing so, the federal relationship, including the role and powers of the governor, at it appears in Article 200, has been converted into a jousting ground in petty ways. This relentless chipping away is radically different from the past when governors appointed by the Centre under the Congress played a role in getting Opposition-run governments dismissed.

The good thing is that every constitutional crisis, be it triggered by petty causes or for exalted reasons, requires the public, including social media consumers, as the primary source of information on the current state of affairs, to think about the Constitution, and what it says. Even if not actually take the trouble to satisfy their curiosity about what is in the book, this is the first time in the republic’s history that so many people have become so aware of its existence, its capacity to spark off political tensions and legal battles.

This is the first time in the republic’s short life of 75 years that the Constitution has become a critical political campaign issue, with the dominant BJP and the Opposition both claiming to be its defenders. By turning the Constitution into a battleground, it has suddenly acquired a new life, from how it is reproduced to what is in it, including the beautifully illustrations and exquisite calligraphy of the original Hindi and English versions, to what is contained within it and, more importantly, what it means.

Just how different things are is obvious; the State of Tamil Nadu, meaning M.K. Stalin’s DMK government, felt sufficiently irritated to take the governor to court; earlier, the Punjab government headed by the AAP’s Bhagwant Singh Mann took the governor to court, as there was a conflict over the power of the appointed governor versus “real power”, which as the Supreme Court said, “rests with the people’s elected representatives in a parliamentary democracy”.

That there is a pattern to the pettiness is evident, as governors in Opposition-ruled states — Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, Punjab and West Bengal — have resorted to the same tactics, of using a hold-up, make governance difficult for state governments by keeping legislation pending by delaying assent as required by the Constitution. The tactics are simple and annoying, because without the governor’s assent bills cannot become law. Withholding assent is bad enough, but in recent times governors have taken to keeping bills pending for a long time and then passing the buck to the President, via the Union home ministry; some have sat on bills that were re-legislated by the state Assemblies, which under the Constitution requires governors to give assent without a fuss.

West Bengal, according to Speaker Biman Banerjee, has 23 bills waiting for the governor’s assent. Worse still is the row between the governor, C.V. Ananda Bose, and the Speaker that played out over inducting newly-elected members into the Assembly in 2024. In Karnataka, governor Thaawarchand Gehlot held up 17 bills; six bills are waiting for his assent; seven bills have been sent back to the state government for reconsideration and four bills have been passed on to the President for her assent.

The fact that Opposition-ruled states have taken the governor to court and the Supreme Court has resorted to extraordinary measures by invoking its “plenary powers” under Article 142, under which it can pass decrees and make orders “as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or order so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India”, found his actions, in the Tamil Nadu case “erroneous” and “illegal”.

If governors are deployed as troublemakers as is obliquely implied by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the fight between the government of Tamil Nadu and its governor, R.N. Ravi, responsible for the “troubled waters stirred by the ensuing long-drawn battle of a high constitutional order”, then the root cause is political.

History, ironically, is being repeated: what the Congress did in the past, the BJP is also doing, but differently. The Congress ensured the dismissal of elected governments and imposing President’s Rule under Article 356 by using reports written by governors of constitutional breakdowns in almost every non- Congress state, and the BJP is using a somewhat circuitous route, except in Manipur, by making it difficult for state governments to function.

President’s Rule has been invoked over an estimated 130 times since 1950; nit-picking and stalling to prevent a state from functioning in critical ways, like the appointment of vice-chancellors for state-funded universities, is a different order of things. The role of the governor in these situations has been reduced to an itch under the skin. Given the number of bills that some governors have palmed off to the President in recent years, and the promptness with which legislation like the Waqf Amendment Bill 2025 became an Act of Parliament, the easy conclusion that can be drawn is there are different precedents for different people.

There is a long-term political cost of conflict between the Centre and some states over interference in state matters. The Centre, regardless which party or alliance of parties holds power, is always suspect; its dealings are always tainted by, as Ashok Mitra, the CPI(M)’s first finance minister in 1977, famously described it, “step-motherly treatment”. However tempting it may be to use silence as consent for misinterpreting the canon of federalism as defined in the Constitution in the short term, there is a lingering impact that outlives the usual span of a life lived in politics. Just as the Congress is forever tainted by its use of Article 356, the BJP has probably earned the same sort of reputation for using the governor as a pawn in its politics of destabilising Opposition-run state governments.

Shikha Mukerjee is a senior journalist based in Kolkata