SECTION 1- (CHAPTER 3)
SHORT DURATION DISCUSSION ON MADHYA PRADESH
Rajya Sabha on July, 1967
EDITORIAL NOTE
In this case, the main issue was whether the Governor was right in accepting the advice of Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh to prorogue the Assembly. Defending the action of the Governor, the Home Minister made a strong case that except in cases where the Constitution specifically provides that the Governor is not bound by the advice of the Chief Minister, the Governor as the Constitutional Head must act on the advice of the Chief Minister.
Shri Y. B. Chavan : Madam Deputy Chairman, it is a rather very interesting situation that after having advanced all their arguments for three hours the hon. Members of the Opposition have no patience to listen to the replies to the points that they have raised.
Madam, this debate became quite an interesting debate in the sense that very controversial constitutional arguments were advanced criticising the prorogation which was advised by the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh and which was accepted by the Governor.
I must make it clear at the very beginning that this is a situation which is not the creation of the Central Government. At no stage were we consulted about it nor we had the authority or the desire to give any advice on this matter. In certain circumstances the Chief Minister gave an advice to the Governor and the Governor accepted it. Now the point that we have debated here was whether the action of the Governor was constitutional or not and criticising this action some Members brought in certain political factors into it. If we are discussing a constitutional, matter, it is much better that we discuss it objectively, as a sort of an impersonal problem and as an impersonal issue. As Mr. Rajnarain said, it has to be considered coolly but while advancing the argument he was very much excited about it. Once we raise the point as to whether the Governor has acted constitutionally or not, we have to find out what the role of the Governor is under our Constitution.
Mr. Rajnarain made a very interesting point. He quoted Article 155 and said that as the Governor was appointed by the President therefore he becomes an agent of the President. I do not think there can be more ignorance about the Constitution. It is certainly a rule in the Government Services that the Government servant who is appointed by a person to that extent becomes responsible to him. In the protection of the Constitution, certainly the Governor is responsible to the President; there is no doubt about it but he is functioning as Head of the State, except in certain matters where the Constitution has specifically provided for it, the Governor functions not as an agent of the President but he functions as the Head of the State. That is the basic position of the Governor. If we take into consideration the political exigencies which differ from State to State and take a judgement on the action of the Governor then we are going to destroy the very spirit of the Constitution. Therefore, we will have to be very objective in this matter.
