The Republic of India has had 15 Presidents over 16 presidencies, its inaugural President, Dr. Rajendra Prasad having served two terms. Of the number of Governors appointed since 1947, the figure is too large to be counted.
The holders of these two high offices can do great good, sometimes not a little harm and very or most often, prefer an almost Advaitic selflessness that leaves no mark whatever — a self-protecting mechanism. It is better to be not remembered at all than remembered negatively. I have often wondered why these high functionaries, when they are males as they invariably are, carry pens in the pockets of their coats. The pen is almost a piece of their essential ‘getting ready’-ness. It makes them seem ever-ready to sign the paper put up to them, wherever they are.
The master cartoonist, Abu Abraham, immortalised the 1975 moment when the then President signed the proclamation of the national emergency by a searing cartoon that showed him signing the paper when it was brought to him (this time with the stylus) at a very odd moment. Signatures can be affixed all too easily, when what is required is saying, ‘No, very sorry, but no.’ The reason may be plain gratitude for being where the Excellency wants to be.
An Abu Abraham cartoon featured in the show Abu’s World held in Bengaluru in 2024. Photo: Special Arrangement
Equally, when a signature is declined not out of genuine reservations but out of bias, an Abu Abraham or an R.K. Laxman is needed to depict the scene. Assents when given in fear or refused out of bias are infractions of Constitutional responsibility.
Reflections from the past
As one who knows that sometimes a signature (and more) can be affixed by a President on his own, without ‘aid or advice’ and without a care on whether what he was doing would ‘go down well or not’, I must recall here President R. Venkataraman (his years in office: 1987-92) and President K. R. Narayanan (years in office: 1997-2002). The pen was used by RV, confidently. It was used by KRN, independently. No cabinet as much as whispered disquiet. Morality was not coy with them, nor fairness halting.
The Prime Ministers RV’s term coincided with — Rajiv Gandhi, V.P. Singh and Chandra Shekhar — were all strong-willed men but they were first-time incumbents of their pivotal office while RV’s experience of political and constitutional office was infinitely bigger. It was natural that they deferred to him when on Bills or other recommendations he had a view contrary to the cabinet’s; he put it across to them in one-on-one confidential discussions, that being his way. The fourth Prime Minister who overlapped with RV, P.V. Narasimha Rao, thought-partnered him more than he did his own cabinet colleagues. There was no scope for friction.
In 1997, the Union Cabinet headed by Prime Minister I.K. Gujral recommended to KRN the dismissal of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in Uttar Pradesh headed by Kalyan Singh. KRN’s world view and that of the BJP did not match. But he was the President of India, not just a resident of Rashtrapati Bhavan, answerable to the values of the Constitution. He did not agree with the recommendation of dismissal and sent it back for reconsideration. The recommendation did not come back.
By 1998, the BJP was in power at the Centre and the newly appointed Governor of Bihar recommended that the government of Rabri Devi be dismissed and President’s Rule imposed under Article 356 of the Constitution of India. The Governor had sent what was claimed to be a fool-proof case showing financial mismanagement and poor law and order markers. KRN demurred, and sent the recommendation back. Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee’s cabinet did not repeat the recommendation. KRN’s action in returning these recommendations had no politics to it. Zero. It had only fairness, Constitutional fairness. It had only morality, Constitutional morality. Fairness and morality are unmistakable. As are their opposites.
RV and KRN could be frank with the government when frankness was called for and they were not misunderstood for the government knew that the frankness came from a desire to caution and correct, not to criticise.
‘Alert and alive’
Presidents and Governors are meant to be men and women with minds that are alert and alive to the letter of the Constitution and to its spirit in an evolving nation. They should see that recommendations made to them adhere to the letter, knowing that the letter can be used sometimes to subvert the spirit — an irony that the framers of the Constitution could not have anticipated. Would Babasaheb Ambedkar have thought that could have happened? The Constitution of India has been made by honest intentions for honest actuation.
No file was held by RV and KRN for more than a few days. They did not have to be detective-Presidents. No delay was orchestrated during which confabulations could be held, and opinions sought in huddles, and given in whispers. No pocket was deepened for a pocket-veto to be exercised.
But their sense of Constitutional morality and fairness did not make them look out for flaws or faults or fallibilities as a full-time occupation, 24X7.
The President and Governors are neither robots, nor are they ring-masters. They are not inert rubber stamps that are pressed gently or not-so-gently onto any parchment that the government of the day places before them; they would make laughing stocks of themselves if they were that. Nor are they pens that can choose any colour of ink or any vocabulary of their choice when expressing a Constitutional view.
Conservative and realistic
The ‘answers’ of the five-judge Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, and including CJI-designate Surya Kant, to President Droupadi Murmu’s 16th Presidential Reference is imbued with this verity. The Bench has said that Governors cannot have a date-line fixed by the Supreme Court of India for their study of Bills — upholding the letter of the Constitution. The Bench has also said unambiguously that ‘evasive inaction’ is not ‘on’ either — upholding the spirit of the Constitution.
In saying the former, the Bench has been conservative. In saying the latter, it has been realistic. The Bench has made it clear that it knows that action and inaction by Governors may not be because they are studious and industrious but because they may be politically predispositioned. The answers of the judges have said that no calendar can be hung on a Governor’s wall that says ‘This is your deadline’.
Their answers have also placed a clock on their desk that ticks loud and clear and has an informal alarm that can ring if the ‘study’ has prolonged beyond normal study hours, leaving it open for the delay to be raised in court.
The Constitution of India , especially in matters concerning Centre-State relations — or to put it differently, on matters affecting India’s federal polity — takes two to work it, but just one, on either side, to wreck it. Ultimately, the working of a Constitutional arrangement depends on the two — legislature and the Governor/President — playing their roles with respect for the Constitution and for each other.
It is remarkable that the five judges unequivocally declined to school either side, or to assume the role of tutor. They have given neither side victory or defeat. The letter of the law has won, but the spirit of the law has not been defeated. In what is an opinion, not an order (for they were not handling an appeal), they have said what is exactly right: the Supreme Court should not, will not, say how a President or Governor should or should not act. That would amount to ‘clutching at a jurisdiction’ (a favourite phrase of RV’s) which is not their’s.
Has the Bench done an exercise in balancing? It has not. It has done an exercise for balance between the power to do right and the right way to do it.
The Indian polity needs to be run not by power games played by adroit players. It needs to be governed by men and women who, when in high office, rise above their limitations. Some incumbents make their offices great, some offices make their incumbents great. The tragedy, as the judges have seen, is that the opposite is equally true.
Gopalkrishna Gandhi was Secretary to the President, and a Governor of West Bengal and Bihar
Published – November 24, 2025 12:16 am IST
