President's rule in UP?: Governor not Centre's postman

If the post-poll surveys, hastily conducted by different media groups, are to be believed, there’s a strong possibility of the two major constituents in the country’s most populated state Uttar Pradesh — Mayawati’s Bahujan Samaj Party and Mulayam Singh Yadav’s Samajwadi Party — could come face to face after the results are finally announced some time on March 6 or a day later.

On the other hand, the Congress leadership that has been putting up a brave face saying it will rule the state with a thumping majority in hand has, however, played the President’s rule card even when the campaigning was on.

Its two statements could be interpreted as self contradictory if not undemocratic in principle.

After the Supreme Court ruling (SR Bommai case) in 1994, the Union government can’t play with the popular sentiment of the electorate. This fact is well known to the Congress-led UPA government that simply ended up issuing ‘advisory’ under Article 355 of the Constitution to anti-Congress state governments in Karnataka and Gujarat.

When the President indeed acted on the advice of the Union cabinet recommending promulgation of Article 356 (central rule in a state) in Bihar to unsettle the JD (U)-BJP government, none else but the President’s wisdom had come under severe criticism by the top court.

Hardly the Bihar ruling’s affects had subsided, none else but UPA’s partner SP started demanding President’s rule in Uttar Pradesh to oust the duly elected BSP government.

Currently the chief minister of West Bengal, Mamata Banerjee also never lost her breath in fervently appealing to her partner UPA government to dismiss the Left Front government in the state then.

It’s an irony that those who are believed to be the ardent disciples of democracy have been deficient in accepting the norm that Opposition is the backbone of a vibrant and healthy parliamentary democratic system.

There’s little doubt that voices for the central rule coming from the ruling quarters do create uncertainty. It’s also a matter of fact that a strong government comprising like minded parties is advantageous to the growth.

Any delay in creating hospitable conditions for setting up a government by a governor could be injurious to the public interests.

It has been held by the top court that a governor is neither a postman nor an agent of the Union government. He needs not be in sync with the policies of the Union government nor should he subscribe to the ideology of the party in power at the Centre.
He can’t be removed if there’s a change in government at the Centre or if he loses its confidence.

The role of a governor, thus, is of far reaching importance and his stay in the Raj Bhavan is no more of a temporary resident status.