How did the NDA government conduct itself while it was in power? When was Madanlal Khurana, an active politician and in the thick of hurly-burly Delhi politics shifted to Rajasthan as Governor? Just a few months before the general elections 2004. Former BJP state president in Andhra Pradesh was shifted to Sikkim as Lt Governor for political reasons. The track-record of Sundar Singh Bhandari as Bihar Governor and the running feud between Laloo and Bhandari are such that our Constitution makers might have wondered why did they create such an institution in the first place. It is also a matter of debate whether any other Governor other than Bhandari in Gujarat during the post-Godhra riots would have behaved the way he did.

Of course, what Cahaudhury Charan Singh did soon after the Janata Party ascended the throne in 1977 dismissing all the state governments which did not vote Janata had set the tone for such politically vindictive action and soon it was followed by Indira Gandhi, who, of course, did not need any precedents or conventions for such undemocratic political deeds. How did Indira use Ram Lal in Andhra Pradesh to throw out a democratically elected government? Let us face it. All the political parties, whatever the grade when it comes to democratic credentials or pretensions, used the office of the Governor as political agents. Both appointments and dismissals were part of political expediency for the party in power to carry out its political agenda.

Now, the BJP cries hoarse that the removal of four governors appointed during its rule is unconstitutional. BJP Secretary General and a legal pundit Arun Jaitley says the motive behind the dismissals is ‘political’. Well, he is absolutely right. What is the raison d’etre of Bhuta Singh’s appointment or Naval Kishore Sharma’s by the present government. Both the appointments and dismissals are political in nature and it is the dubious tradition the parties in power have been maintaining all these years. When the BJP appointed RSS functionaries as custodians of Raj Bhavans in different states, was it not a political decision. But the catch is with the Home Minister’s explanation when he says that all the dismissed governors were members of the RSS and hence they were removed. Well, I for one may not agree that just because one has an RSS background he gets disqualified for any constitutional office. If the UPA combine led by the Congress can rub shoulders with Vaiko whose allegiance to an outlawed terrorist outfit is an open secret or remain an ally of a party whose leader had been passing on state secrets to the outlawed group, what was the sin committed by RSS. Is it because one particular political persuation finds RSS’ patriotic fervour something not very modern, but medieval.

The irony is that the Union Council of Ministers has a minister of state, A Narendra, whose claim to ‘ fame’ is that he was found on the top of the tomb at Babri Masjid on December 2. He was the one who penetrated the barricades of Mulayam Singh when the latter boasted that not even a bird could fly to the Masjid. Narendra is a frequent jail mate of Sultan Salahuddin Owaissi whenever both were put behind the bars on every outbreak of communal violence in the Old city of Hyderabad. The side story is that Narendra recently attended an RSS camp much to the embarrassment of the Congress combine and the Left parties are up in arms demanding the removal of the RSS-turned TRS leader. Naturally, the Union Home Minister is in a dilemma. He has removed RSS governors. What will he do with an RSS minister in the Council of Ministers. Will Narendra’s removal lead to unnecessary headache for YS Rajasekhara Reddy. Will TRS chief K Chandrasekhara Rao be prepared to sacrifice Narendra? But then, you have E Ahmed of Indian Union Muslim League in the same union ministry. There can’t be two sets of rules, one for a leader with RSS background and the other for a member of the IUML. May be, Manmohan Singh may justify it as part of coalition dharma.

Political implications apart, what is the legality of the DPA government’s decision? Art 156(1) of the Constitution states that a Governor shall hold office during the pleasure of the President. This does not mean that when the President ‘smiles’ they are in office and when he ’frowns’ they are out. The question is whether this ‘pleasure’ is exercisable by the President. When does he withdraw this ‘pleasure’? Even when it comes to ‘clemency’ for those facing capital punishment, President’s discretion is notional. It is the Home ministry which again prompts his ‘discretion’. The President may withdraw his ‘pleasure’ when the governor, expected to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, fails in his duties. Even under such circumstances, the Executive has to apprise the President of such a misdemeanour.