A few days ago, Home Ministry officials asked a number of governors to resign. This is not only unprecedented but is also shocking, both for its intention and method. The office of the governor is a creation of the Constitution and governors are appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal under Article 155 of the Constitution. Article 156 (2) provides that the Governor may, by writing under his hand, addressed to the President, resign his office. This provision read along with the Article 156 (3) which provides that the governor would hold office for a term of 5 years makes it obvious that the governor cannot be forced out of his office by any authority except when he on his own decides to resign. The position and role of governors have been the subject matter of discussion byseveral committees including the Sarkaria Commission.

All communications from the governor and reports on the state are normally addressed by him to the President of India and only copies are marked to others, including the Union Home Ministry. The fact that the Home Ministry is the nodal ministry for processing the appointments of the governors and dealing with other matters relating to the governors' office does not mean that governors serve under the Home Ministry or that the Ministry officials can ask the governors to submit resignation.

The Constitution no doubt provides that the governor holds office during the pleasure of the President. But this pleasure is exercised within well-established constitutional norms and the President cannot withdraw his pleasure without the most extraordinary reasons.

The deterioration in the approach and behaviour of leaders of most political parties, when in power, and narrow political approach leading to increasing manipulation of the basic institutions of thedemocratic edifice of our country, are taking us on an extremely hazardous downward path.

Once we alter the criteria for appointment to high constitutional offices, there would always be the temptation to change them for extraneous or political reasons. Several governments in the past have been guilty of this perverse psyche. The present government, in spite of declaring that the dignity of the office of the governor will be protected, has acted in a rather regrettable fashion.

The process of selection of persons for appointment as governors needs to be made more transparent and consensual. It is desirable that the Prime Minister should consult the chief minister of the state concerned and the leader of the opposition and then discuss with the President. It will set healthy practices and strengthen democratic values, and also encourage transparency in governance and honesty of purpose.

There have been instances of all-round appreciation for K. R. Narayanan's strictly proper attitude in handling a fewcases which are unique in contemporary history. Through his actions, he has helped the preservation of healthy norms and constitutional provisions. But there have been cases where the President yielded to the advice of the caretaker government of I.K. Gujral. A few days ago, Inderjit Gupta made a statement defending the appointment of some governors by the care-taker Government stating that it was necessary to fill the vacancies without explaining as to what urgency was there for such actions when the governor of Maharashtra was holding charge of Goa and governor of Tripura was holding charge of Mizoram. It was a question of propriety also when it was a known fact that the new government would be there within a short time. The action is now being reversed by the new government only at the cost of further harm to the polity.

In a situation like this, the President should be pro-active as the guardian of the Constitution. There is nothing wrong with the Constitution. It is for the men in power to change theirmethods and hearts.

The writer has served as governor of several states