NEW DELHI — In a scathing critique, Supreme Court Judge B.V. Nagarathna has accused some governors of overstepping their constitutional boundaries, while failing to discharge their duties in critical areas.
Judge Nagarathna’s comments come amidst growing concerns about the role of governors in India’s federal system. While governors are constitutionally mandated to act as neutral arbiters, some have been accused of acting as agents of the central government, undermining the autonomy of state governments.
Judge Nagarathna took aim at governors who have been “playing a role where they shouldn’t,” implying that they have been interfering in matters beyond their constitutional remit. This, she suggested, has led to an erosion of trust in the institution of the governor.
Conversely, Judge Nagarathna criticized governors for being “inactive where they ought to be,” suggesting that they have failed to discharge their duties in critical areas such as protecting the rights of citizens and ensuring good governance.
The judge emphasized that governors have a constitutional mandate to act as neutral arbiters, ensuring that state governments function in accordance with the Constitution. However, some governors have been accused of acting in a partisan manner, favoring the interests of the central government over those of the state.
Judge Nagarathna’s comments reflect growing judicial concerns about the role of governors in India’s federal system. The Supreme Court has previously intervened in cases where governors have been accused of overstepping their boundaries, highlighting the need for greater clarity on their role.
Judge Nagarathna’s critique of governors highlights the need for greater accountability and clarity on their role in India’s federal system. As the country navigates complex political and constitutional challenges, the institution of the governor must be strengthened to ensure that it serves as a neutral arbiter, rather than a partisan actor.