20 Mar 2023 : The Indian Express

Editorial 1: No case for discretion: Role of Governor in Centre-state relation

Recent Context:

• In the ongoing disqualification proceedings against Maharashtra MLAs in the Supreme Court, five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud criticised the role and power of governor in center-state relation
• The CJI observed that the “governor should not enter the political arena”, adding that a governor “cannot enter into any area by which his action would precipitate the fall of a government” and that unless this principle is maintained, it would be “very, very serious for our democracy”

What role does the Governor play in the parliamentary system?

• Articles 153-161 of Indian Constitution mention about position, role, powers, and conditions of office of the Governor which is similar to that of the President at the Union.
• The Governor is appointed by the President (on the advice of the central government) and, therefore, acts as the vital link between the Union and the state governments.
• The post was envisaged as being apolitical; however, the role of Governors has been a contentious issue in Centre-state relations for decades.
• The Governor enjoys certain powers such as giving or withholding assent to a Bill passed by the state legislature or determining the time needed for a party to prove its majority — or which party must be called first to do so, generally after in a hung Assembly — which have been misused by successive central governments against the political opposition.
• He is at the head of the state’s executive power, and barring some matters, acts on the advice of the council of ministers, which is responsible, in accordance with the parliamentary system, to the state legislature.

Recent issues in which role of Governor is criticised

• The crucial issue at hand is regarding the procedural and constitutional powers conferred on a governor. A governor who is expected to be non-partisan cannot function in a way that precipitates a crisis and leads to the toppling of a duly elected government.
•  Furthermore, being an executive appointee, the governor has no role to play in legislative issues, and if at all he does, we need to delineate the circumstantial constraints and exceptions that will legitimately allow his interference.
• Recently, in  Maharashtra crisis are sub judice, the role and scope of the office of governor is criticised .
• Along with it, In India in recent years, there have been a spate of controversies about governors across the country from Jharkhand and West Bengal to Tamil Nadu and Kerala. This issue has gotten to such a worrying level that many governors are being called “agent provocateur of the Centre”.
• Recently, case of R N Ravi, the Tamil Nadu governor. Exceeding his powers, he skipped certain parts of his speech, omitting words such as secularism, Periyar and B R Ambedkar.
• He further made denigrating remarks stating that the Dravidian model is regressive politics, and in a gathering of civil aspirants, he advised them that in matters of dispute between Centre and State, they should always undoubtedly take the side of the Centre. He went on to show the impertinence of changing the name of the state of Tamil Nadu itself!
• Likewise, former Jharkhand governor (now Maharashtra governor) Ramesh Bais withheld the opinion of the Election Commission in Hemant Soren’s office of profit case and did not act on it, thereby causing chaos and destabilising the House
  •  In fact, by keeping the EC’s verdict a secret, despite repeated requests by both Chief Minister Soren and the ruling UPA, he violated Article 192(2) of the Constitution, which says that he “shall act” according to such opinion.

Governor should show non-partisan statesmanship in his/her actions

• As an unelected appointee of the Centre, the governor is expected to not get involved in political controversies or ideological rifts. He must display non-partisan statesmanship, not turn confrontational and meddlesome in legislative matters.
• It is also necessary to restrict the discretionary powers of the governor because a politically-active and partisan governor would be usurping the power of elected representatives.
• The question mark on the role of governors is not a new phenomenon. Demands have been raised ranging from restricting their discretionary powers to even abolishing the post.
• Their questionable role in the wake of an election to invite a leader to form the government has often been observed. A hung mandate becomes a fertile ground for some governors who are happy to play the puppet in the hands of an overbearing Centre.
• There is need to Lay down a clear procedure in cases of a hung mandate would do great good to Indian democracy.
• The Justice Sarkaria Commission, set up in 1983 to examine the relationship and balance of power between state and central governments, had recommended the following order to be followed by a governor in cases of a hung assembly
  •  One, an alliance of parties that was formed prior to the elections;
  • two, the single largest party staking a claim to form the government with the support of others, including independents;
  • three, a post-electoral coalition of parties, with all the partners in the coalition joining the government;
  • four, a post-electoral alliance of parties, with some of the parties in the alliance forming a government and the remaining parties, including independents, supporting the government from outside.
• Two decades later, Justice Punchhi Committee (2007) reiterated the recommendations, but successive governments have not bothered to take it seriously.

Conclusion:

• History has shown that constitutional morality and values are too serious to be left to the discretion of governors.
• There is need to design institutional safeguards to ensure that governors do not cross the Lakshman Rekha.
• The Sarkaria and Punchhi commissions have dealt with the subject at length. To strengthen our democracy and its federal structure steps need to be taken.

Editorial 2: ICC issues arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin for war crimes in Ukraine: What does this mean?

Recent Context:

• Recently,  International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for war crimes for President Vladimir Putin and a second Russian official. Here’s a closer look at the court, the warrant and what it could mean for Russia’s leader.

Why did the International Criminal Court issue the warrants?

• The court says Putin bears individual criminal responsibility for the abduction and deportation of Ukrainian children since Russia’s full-scale invasion began in February last year.
• The court also issued a warrant for Maria Lvova-Belova, Russia’s commissioner for children’s rights, who has been the public face of a Kremlin-sponsored program in which Ukrainian children and teenagers have been taken to Russia.
• The court said in a statement “that there are reasonable grounds to believe that each suspect bears responsibility for the war crime of unlawful deportation of population and that of unlawful transfer of population from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation.”

What is the International Criminal Court?

• The International Criminal Court was created two decades ago as a standing body to investigate war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity under a 1998 treaty known as the Rome Statute.
•  Previously, the United Nations Security Council had established ad hoc tribunals to address atrocities in places such as the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
• The court is based in The Hague, a Dutch city that has long been a center for international law and justice.
• Many democracies joined the International Criminal Court, including close American allies including Britain. But the United States has long kept its distance, fearing that the court might one day seek to prosecute American officials, and Russia is also not a member.
• The Biden administration has been engaged in an internal dispute over whether to provide the court with evidence gathered by the U.S. intelligence community about Russian war crimes.
• Most of the administration favors transferring the evidence, according to people familiar with the internal deliberations, but the Pentagon has balked because it does not want to set a precedent that could pave the way for eventual prosecutions of Americans.

What does the warrant mean for Putin?

• Human rights groups hailed the warrant as an important step toward ending impunity for Russian war crimes in Ukraine, but the likelihood of a trial while Putin remains in power appears slim, because the court cannot try defendants in absentia and Russia has said it will not surrender its own officials.
• Russia’s Foreign Ministry quickly dismissed the warrants, noting that it is not a party to the court. Still, the warrant for Putin’s arrest deepens his isolation in the West and could limit his movements overseas. If he travels to a state that is party to the ICC, that country must arrest him, according to its obligations under international law.

So, Putin will face trail ?

• The court has no power to arrest sitting heads of state or bring them to trial, and instead must rely on other leaders and governments to act as its sheriffs around the world.
• A suspect who manages to evade capture may never have a hearing to confirm the charges.
• However, late last year, a legal move complicated the issue. In November, the court’s prosecutor petitioned to move ahead with the confirmation of charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity against Joseph Kony, the Ugandan militant and founder of the Lord’s Resistance Army, even though he is not in custody and has been a fugitive for years.
  • Kony, who transformed kidnapped children into soldiers, is accused of murder, cruel treatment, enslavement, rape and attacks against civilian population.

How is ICC Different from ICJ?