It is important to understand the role and powers of the Governor in the Indian Constitution. This article discusses the issue of political appointees in Raj Bhavan using their authority to delay or undermine decisions made by elected regimes.
Tamil Nadu and Kerala have approached the Supreme Court against the conduct of their Governors.
The Governors are accused of delaying the granting of assent to Bills passed by the legislature.
Tamil Nadu is also unhappy with the delay in acting upon proposals related to remission for convicts, prosecution of former Ministers, and appointments to the State Public Service Commissions.
Governors, especially in States not governed by the ruling party at the Centre, are accused of blocking decisions and Bills.
Some Governors are opposed to amendments to university laws that remove their power as Chancellors.
The idea of having Governors as ex-officio vice-chancellors of universities is only a practice, but Governors believe they have a right to be Chancellors.
It is recommended to have a national prohibition on Governors being Chancellors, as suggested by the Justice M.M. Punchhi Commission.
Some Governors are using the absence of a time-frame for giving assent to stymie laws passed by the legislature.
The Supreme Court has reminded constitutional authorities that the phrase "as soon as possible" in Article 200 of the Constitution has significant "constitutional content" and Governors cannot indefinitely hold on to Bills without conveying a decision.
States should be prudent in their decision-making to avoid questions on the merit of their decisions.
There is no laid-down process to seek applications and assess the relative merits of applicants before appointing the chairperson and members of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.
Governors are explicitly restricted in their functioning by the 'aid and advice' clause in the Constitution and should not misuse their discretionary space.
The issue of misinformation and disinformation in today's communication system, particularly on social media. It highlights the Tamil Nadu government's decision to establish a fact-checking unit and the concerns surrounding it.
The Tamil Nadu government has decided to establish a fact-checking unit to address misinformation and disinformation related to the state government.
This decision follows a similar move by the Karnataka government.
However, allowing governments or their units to determine what is false or not is problematic, as it creates a conflict of interest.
Tamil Nadu's decision should be viewed in conjunction with the Centre's notification of the IT Rules, which allowed the Ministry of Electronics and IT to appoint a fact-checking unit.
The IT rule enabling the unit has been challenged by various parties, including the Editors Guild of India and political satirist Kunal Kamra.
The Bombay High Court has raised concerns about the lack of necessary safeguards and the potential infringement upon freedom of speech and expression.
The verdict on the constitution of a government "fact-checking unit" will be delivered on December 1.
The Editors Guild of India has urged Karnataka to specify the scope and powers of the fact-checking unit.
The Guild suggests that misinformation and fake news should be handled by independent bodies.
States have their own information and publicity departments to clarify news related to them.
Independent fact-checkers already tackle misinformation on social media. - It would have been ideal for such units to involve journalists and other stakeholders, but Tamil Nadu government's decision did not include them.
Kommentare