top of page

By:

Correspondent

23 August 2024 at 4:29:04 pm

Deadly Commute

Mumbai has always taken pride in its local trains, which have been celebrated as the city’s lifeline. It has long been a democratic institution that carries millionaires and labourers alike, and a symbol of the resilience that Mumbaikars so often boast about. The brutal murder of a 22-year-old passenger inside a moving local has exposed a darker reality. The city’s most cherished public service is no longer merely overcrowded and uncomfortable but is becoming steadily unsafe. The victim,...

Deadly Commute

Mumbai has always taken pride in its local trains, which have been celebrated as the city’s lifeline. It has long been a democratic institution that carries millionaires and labourers alike, and a symbol of the resilience that Mumbaikars so often boast about. The brutal murder of a 22-year-old passenger inside a moving local has exposed a darker reality. The city’s most cherished public service is no longer merely overcrowded and uncomfortable but is becoming steadily unsafe. The victim, travelling in a first-class compartment of a Churchgate-Nallasopara fast local, became embroiled in an argument over whether the train door should be kept open during heavy rain. The disagreement escalated into fatal violence after the accused pulled out a knife and stabbed him in the abdomen. As blood pooled on the floor of the compartment, passengers merely stood there watched in horror. A video of the aftermath showed the alleged killer walking away with the weapon in hand without anybody stopping him. For years, a rough but effective social order prevailed in the Mumbai local train. While commuters may have jostled for space and exchanged harsh words, there remained an unwritten code of conduct for keeping outright criminality at bay. Mumbai’s trains have long been dangerous in one sense. Every year, hundreds die while crossing tracks, hanging from footboards or falling from overcrowded coaches. But passengers rarely feared being murdered inside the compartment itself. S Even more troubling was the reaction of those present. The footage suggests that dozens of passengers chose self-preservation over intervention. While few citizens would willingly confront an armed attacker, the images nonetheless reveal a growing atomisation of urban life. Millions travel together every day, but increasingly as strangers who feel no responsibility towards one another. Mumbai’s famed collective spirit has now become a slogan repeated only after disasters rather than a reality visible in everyday life. The authorities, too, have questions to answer. How did an individual carrying a knife manage to board and travel through one of the busiest suburban rail networks in the world? Why does visible security remain so sparse despite years of promises about surveillance, modernisation and passenger safety? The Railways have invested heavily in technology, announcements and infrastructure upgrades. Yet commuters continue to encounter inadequate policing and an absence of deterrence. The larger concern is cultural. Across India’s cities, there is evidence of rising public aggression. Minor disagreements increasingly escalate into violence. Road-rage incidents, neighbourhood disputes and social-media-fuelled confrontations frequently end in bloodshed. Patience, compromise and restraint appear to be in retreat. Mumbai likes to imagine itself as different from the rest of India. The local train murder suggests otherwise. A city is judged not by its skyline but by the safety of its ordinary spaces. When passengers can no longer assume that they will return home alive from a routine train journey, something fundamental has gone wrong.

The Governor’s Dilemma

Caught between constitutional duty and political suspicion, the new gubernatorial appointments underscore how the Governor’s office remains one of the most contested pillars of India’s federal system.

The recent appointment and reshuffling of Governors and Lieutenant Governors for six states and two Union Territories by the President of India, Droupadi Murmu, including the politically significant state of West Bengal on the eve of crucial Assembly elections, has once again brought the office of the Governor into sharp public focus. Within India’s federal framework, the Governor functions as the constitutional head of the state and occupies an important position in the governance structure, exercising executive, legislative and certain discretionary powers that influence the functioning of the state government.


Introducing Flexibility

Article 153 of the Constitution of India provides that each state shall have a Governor. However, the Seventh Constitutional Amendment Act, 1956 introduced flexibility by permitting the appointment of the same individual as Governor for two or more states. Unlike the President of India, the Governor is neither directly nor indirectly elected. The office follows a model inspired by the Canadian system of governance, under which the Governor is appointed by the President through a warrant under his hand and seal, while the oath of office is administered by the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court. By long-standing convention, the appointee is generally an outsider to the state concerned, and the President is expected to consult the Chief Minister prior to such appointment.


As the de jure constitutional head of the state, the Governor is ordinarily expected to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in situations where the Constitution expressly permits the exercise of discretion. It is this sphere of discretionary authority that lies at the heart of the ongoing debate surrounding the Governor’s office. These powers allow the Governor to act according to personal judgment without ministerial advice and, in certain respects, are considered broader than those of the President. They include functions such as reserving bills for the consideration of the President or recommending the imposition of President’s Rule, making their exercise a frequent subject of constitutional and political scrutiny.


Controversial Instances

Over the years, several instances have highlighted the controversies surrounding the exercise of such discretion. In 2016, the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh advanced a session of the state Assembly, triggering a political crisis that was later declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. In the same year, the recommendation of President’s Rule in Uttarakhand by the Governor was set aside by the High Court. In Karnataka in 2018, the Governor invited the single largest party to form the government despite a post-poll coalition claiming majority support. In 2020, the Governor of Kerala faced criticism for delaying assent to a bill passed by the state legislature.


More recently, the issue resurfaced in Tamil Nadu, where Governor R. N. Ravi was criticized for delaying assent to several bills passed by the state Assembly, an action widely described as a “pocket veto.” Observations by the Supreme Court regarding the delay in granting assent to these bills have once again revived debates on the constitutional limits of gubernatorial discretion. Similarly, the West Bengal government has frequently accused Governor C. V. Ananda Bose of unwarranted interference in the functioning of the elected administration, reflecting recurring tensions between Raj Bhavans and state governments, particularly in opposition-ruled states.


Against this backdrop, the recent reshuffling and appointment of Governors by the Union government assumes particular significance, especially in politically sensitive and poll-bound states such as West Bengal. The Governor’s discretionary powers both constitutional and situational may become crucial in times of political instability, including situations such as the appointment of a Chief Minister in a hung Assembly, fragile coalition arrangements, or constitutional deadlocks before or after elections. In such circumstances, the Governor may also be called upon to dismiss a Council of Ministers that fails to demonstrate majority support or recommend the dissolution of the state legislative assembly. Consequently, the office of the Governor often becomes central to resolving political and constitutional uncertainties.


Situational Discretion

At the same time, opposition-ruled states have frequently argued that the exercise of such situational discretion may reflect the influence of the Union government rather than an independent constitutional judgment. This perception has continued to fuel tensions within India’s federal framework, particularly in states governed by parties opposed to the ruling party at the Centre.


The constitutional vision of the Governor’s office, however, demands a high degree of neutrality, restraint and institutional integrity. The Governor was envisaged as an impartial constitutional authority and a vital link between the Union and the states, rather than as a political instrument. Preserving the dignity and neutrality of this office is therefore essential for maintaining the spirit of cooperative federalism that lies at the heart of India’s constitutional design.


In this context, the recommendations of expert bodies such as the Sarkaria Commission (1988), the Venkatachaliah Commission (2002) and the Punchhi Commission (2010) assume renewed relevance. Their proposals, aimed at insulating the office of the Governor from partisan politics and strengthening its constitutional role, merit serious consideration if India’s federal democracy is to function effectively in both letter and spirit.


(The writers are advocates practicing before the Supreme Court of India. Views personal.)

 


Comments

bottom of page