Daily Editorial Analysis 29 November 2025

The ‘Impartiality’ of a Nominated Governor

Context

• The renewed scrutiny of the role of Governors in India has brought attention back to the intentions of the framers of the Constitution and the divergence between those intentions and contemporary practices.
• As the Constitution was adopted on November 26, 1949, the Constituent Assembly engaged in extensive debate to ensure that institutions such as the Governor’s office operated within the spirit of parliamentary democracy.
• The evolving debate on the role of Governors highlights a clear divergence between constitutional intention and administrative practice.

The Vision of the Constitution’s Framers

• The Assembly voiced strong concerns about the impartiality and democratic legitimacy of a nominated Governor.
• Many feared that such an appointee, being selected by the Centre rather than elected by the people, could be susceptible to political influence, mirroring the colonial-era Governors under the Government of India Act, 1935.
• The apprehension was that post-independence India might replicate the hierarchical power structures of the British Raj.
• Throughout these debates, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar clarified that the Governor was intended to be a purely constitutional Governor, required to act strictly on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
• He emphasised that the Governor’s responsibility was to make the parliamentary system work, not to rival the elected Ministry.
• This design ensured that democratic authority remained solely with elected representatives, not with nominated functionaries.

The Question of Discretion: Limited and Clearly Defined

• A major concern related to the Governor’s discretionary powers.
• Members feared that granting any discretionary authority risked reintroducing the overriding powers of colonial Governors.
• Ambedkar responded categorically that the Constitution provided only a very limited discretion, applicable only in explicit circumstances such as choosing a Chief Minister when no party commands a clear majority.
• He repeatedly asserted that no power of discretion is to be inferred unless expressly provided.
• This principle was essential in ensuring that Governors could not unilaterally expand their authority through interpretation or convention.
• The office was meant to be restrained, predictable, and firmly subordinate to the democratic executive.

The Debate on Withholding Assent to Bills

• The power to withhold assent or reserve Bills for the President also triggered significant debate.
• Critics argued that allowing a nominated Governor to impede legislation passed by an elected Assembly threatened the very basis of representative government.
• Leaders such as G. Ranga warned that permitting such control would be dangerous, as it placed elected legislatures at the mercy of an unelected figure.
• Ambedkar clarified that this power was not a discretionary veto but a procedural safeguard meant only for exceptional cases involving federal concerns or violations of constitutional principles.
• He stressed that the Governor was not a judge of legislative wisdom, stating that where the Constitution required action on ministerial advice, he must act on advice.
• His assurance that there was no ground for fear that the Governor will become a rival authority captured the framers’ determination to uphold democratic supremacy.

The Framers’ Expectations and Changed Realities

• Ambedkar extended the principle of limited authority even to emergencies, asserting that Governors did not gain special powers and remained bound by ministerial advice.
• His confidence in the restrained nature of the office led him to remark that the role was so limited, so nominal, so ornamental that few would even desire it.
• In contrast, present-day political realities reveal a growing departure from this constitutional vision.
• In several States, Governors have been accused of delaying assent, withholding decisions, and engaging in political disagreements, challenging the norms of cooperative federalism.
• The constitutional requirement to act as soon as possible has, in some instances, been reinterpreted as ‘as late as possible’, causing friction between State governments and the gubernatorial office.
• These developments echo R. Narayanan’s profound question on the 50th anniversary of the Republic: “Has the Constitution failed us, or have we failed the Constitution?”
• The evidence suggests that constitutional function is compromised not by structural flaws but by individuals who disregard the ethical and moral responsibilities embedded in their offices.

Conclusion

• The framers envisioned a Governor who was neutral, restrained, and bound by democratic accountability.
• Contemporary deviations do not reflect ambiguity in constitutional design but a failure to adhere to constitutional morality.
• Ambedkar’s caution that if the system breaks down, Man was vile, remains a powerful reminder that democratic institutions rely not only on legal provisions but also on the integrity of those entrusted with authority.
• Upholding the limited authority, constitutional propriety, and democratic ethos intended by the framers is essential for preserving the balance of India’s parliamentary democracy.

The ‘Impartiality’ of a Nominated Governor FAQs

 Q1. What role did Dr. B.R. Ambedkar envision for the Governor?

Ans. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar envisioned the Governor as a purely constitutional figure who must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers.

Q2. Why were Constituent Assembly members concerned about a nominated Governor?

Ans. They were concerned because a nominated Governor might be influenced by the Centre and resemble the colonial Governors of 1935.

Q3. How did Ambedkar describe the Governor’s discretionary powers?

Ans. Ambedkar described the Governor’s discretionary powers as very limited and applicable only in explicitly stated situations.

Q4. What safeguard did Ambedkar cite regarding reservation of Bills?

Ans. He stated that reserving Bills for the President was not a discretionary veto but a limited procedure meant for cases involving federal or constitutional concerns.

Q5. What contemporary issue contradicts the framers’ expectations?

Ans. The contemporary issue is that some Governors delay or withhold assent to Bills, acting contrary to the constitutional requirement to decide “as soon as possible.”

Source: The Hindu

India’s Disaster Response, A Slippery Slope for Federalism

Context

• The inter-governmental transfer of disaster-relief resources in India shows a growing asymmetry between the Union and the States, reflected in the widening gap between assessed needs and actual disbursements.
• The Centre’s response to the Wayanad landslides has intensified concerns about whether India’s fiscal federal structure is shifting from a cooperative model to a more centralised and conditional regime of disaster-risk finance.
• As climate shocks intensify, these tensions expose weaknesses in the fiscal foundations of India’s disaster-response system.

Growing Strain in India’s Disaster-Financing Framework

• Greater Central Control

  • The Wayanad tragedy of July 2024, which killed nearly 300 people and damaged thousands of homes, illustrated this imbalance starkly.
  • Against Kerala’s recovery needs of ₹2,200 crore, the Union approved only ₹260 crore, roughly 11% of the requested amount.
  • Similar shortfalls in other States indicate a pattern where cooperative federalism is weakening, and disaster situations have become fiscal stress tests for State budgets.
  • India’s disaster-response financing, established under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, is built on a two-tier structure.
  • The State Disaster Response Fund (SDRF), funded largely by the Centre, supports immediate relief, while the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) supplements it when calamities are classified as severe.
  • Although this design appears balanced, practice reveals a shift toward greater central control.

• Outdated and Rigid Relief Norms

  • Compensation ceilings, ₹4 lakh per life lost and ₹1.2 lakh for a fully damaged house, have seen minimal revision in a decade, failing to match rising reconstruction costs.
  • A second issue is the ambiguity in classifying disasters as severe, giving the Centre wide discretionary power over access to NDRF support.
  • Third, aid releases are procedural rather than automatic, requiring multiple approvals that delay relief during critical moments.
  • Finally, the Finance Commission’s allocation criteria focus on population and area rather than actual hazard exposure, creating allocations that do not reflect vulnerability to floods, landslides, or cyclones.

The Drift Toward Centralisation

• The Wayanad case highlighted how institutional weaknesses shape outcomes.
• The Centre pointed to Kerala’s unspent SDRF balance of ₹780 crore and an earlier interest-free loan of ₹529 crore as grounds to limit additional aid.
• However, SDRF balances often represent ongoing commitments rather than idle funds, especially because fund instalments arrive late in the fiscal year while disasters are seasonal.
• SDRF rules also restrict spending to immediate relief, not reconstruction or livelihood restoration, compelling States to retain reserves to address future shocks.
• Delays in classifying the Wayanad landslides as a severe disaster further restricted Kerala’s access to NDRF funds.
• Other States, including Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Assam—received larger packages for comparable disasters, exposing inconsistencies in disaster categorisation.
• Similar mismatches emerged after Cyclone Gaja (2018) in Tamil Nadu and the 2019 floods in Karnataka.
• Across these instances, the combination of slow approvals, rigid norms, and inadequate allocations reflects a move from cooperative federalism toward bureaucratic negotiation.

The Way Forward

• Learning from Global Models

  • International best practices show how data-driven and rules-based systems can reduce delays and improve accountability.
  • The United States’ FEMA uses per-capita damage thresholds to determine federal support. Mexico’s former FONDEN triggered instant payouts when rainfall or wind-speed thresholds were crossed.
  • The Philippines relies on rainfall and fatality indices, while African and Caribbean regional insurance pools use satellite-based parametric triggers for rapid disbursements.
  • Australia links federal relief to the proportion of State expenditure relative to revenue. These mechanisms demonstrate that clear, objective triggers can minimise discretion and speed up relief.
  • India could adopt triggers such as rainfall intensity, fatalities per million, or loss-to-GSDP ratios to strengthen transparency and trust.

• Rebuilding the Federal Spirit

  • The Sixteenth Finance Commission has a crucial opportunity to redesign India’s disaster-financing architecture.
  • Key reforms include updating compensation norms to reflect current costs, revising allocation criteria through a comprehensive vulnerability index, and ensuring that assistance remains grant-based rather than debt-based.
  • States should have operational autonomy over disaster funds, with the Union focusing on post-audit verification instead of prior approvals.
  • Such reforms would not weaken central oversight but would reinforce a rules-based, cooperative federal system capable of responding swiftly and equitably.

Conclusion

• Disasters expose both physical and institutional vulnerabilities. When relief becomes a matter of negotiation instead of solidarity, fiscal federalism comes under strain.
• India’s system must evolve from procedural dependence to a rules-based partnership that delivers timely, predictable, and equitable assistance. If federalism fails during crises, it fails precisely when citizens need it most.
• The Wayanad tragedy underscores the urgency of rebuilding the fiscal foundations of India’s disaster-response framework before the next catastrophe strikes.

India’s Disaster Response, A Slippery Slope for Federalism FAQs

 Q1. What key imbalance does India’s disaster-financing system currently face?
Ans. India’s disaster-financing system faces a growing imbalance between the assessed needs of States and the actual financial assistance released by the Union government.

Q2. Why is the Wayanad landslide case significant for understanding fiscal federalism?
Ans. The Wayanad case is significant because it highlights how severe the gap can be between State losses and Union aid, revealing a shift toward increased central discretion.

Q3. What major flaw exists in the criteria used by the Finance Commission for fund allocation?
Ans. The major flaw is that the criteria rely on population and area rather than using accurate indicators of hazard exposure and disaster vulnerability.

Q4. How do global disaster-financing models differ from India’s system?
Ans. Global models differ by using automatic, data-driven triggers for releasing funds, which reduces discretion and speeds up relief.

Q5. What reform is essential for restoring cooperative federalism in disaster response?
Ans. It is essential to adopt a rules-based financing framework that updates relief norms, aligns allocations with vulnerability, and grants States greater operational control over disaster funds.

 Source: The Hindu

‹ ›

Post-Facto Environmental Clearances – A Threat to India’s Environmental Jurisprudence

Context

• India faces one of the world’s gravest pollution crises, with 83 of the top 100 most polluted global cities.
• Amid this deteriorating environmental scenario, the Supreme Court’s recent decision (2:1 verdict on Nov 18, 2025) to allow post-facto environmental clearances has triggered deep concern regarding environmental governance and constitutional rights under Article 21.

Background – The Pollution Emergency

• Delhi’s toxic air leads to children losing lung function before age 10.
• Farmers in Punjab and Haryana inhaling carcinogenic particulates annually in winters.
• Cities witnessing an overload of respiratory
• Therefore, environmental safeguards are not procedural formalities but life-saving protections.

The Supreme Court’s Reversal

• Earlier position: In the Vanashakti vs Union of India (May 2025), post-facto environmental clearances declared outright illegal.
• Recent judgment:
  • SC recalls Vanashakti judgment.
  • Allows retrospective clearances for “permissible activities” under existing regulatory frameworks.
  • It is seen as an erosion of the principle of prior environmental clearance.
• Implications of recent judgment:
  • It provides legal amnesty to violators, and undermines preventive environmental governance.
  • It contradicts the constitutional right to clean the environment under Article 21.

Why Prior Environmental Clearance Matters

• It is derived from Right to Life (Article 21), and includes clean air, clean water, and a healthy environment.
• Hence, prevention, not post-damage remediation, is the foundation of environmental law, and post-facto approvals reward violators and discourage compliance.

Systemic Dilution of Environmental Safeguards (Five Key Examples)

• Draft EIA Notification 2020 and 2021 OM

  • The Draft Environmental Impact Assessment Notification 2020 (along with an Office Memorandum of 2021), attempted to institutionalise post-facto clearances.
  • Reduced compliance reporting, public participation, and expanded the list of industries exempt from EIA.
  • The SC’s current judgment dangerously echoes this framework that was widely criticised as pro-industry, anti-environment.

• Amendments to Forest Conservation Act (FCA)

  • It narrowed the definition of “forest land”, and excluded lands earlier protected under T.N. Godavarman jurisprudence (1996).
  • It allowed strategic/linear projects to bypass safeguards – increased diversion of forests, especially in tribal northeast (NE) India.

• Sectoral exemption

  • Coal, oil and gas, and construction pushed into lower-regulation categories.
  • For instance, projects classified under “B2” categories require no EIA, no public hearing, and minimal environmental oversight.
  • This has enabled a range of mining and industrial activities to bypass the most important safeguard — public consultation — core to environmental democracy.

• Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification 2018

  • It significantly weakened protections for fragile coastal ecosystems, allowing construction closer to shorelines.
  • Ecologically fragile coasts, already facing erosion, rising sea levels, and cyclones, were effectively handed over for commercial exploitation at a time when global climate risks demand increased protection, not deregulation.

• Fast-tracking clearances

  • Rubber-stamp expert committees cleared over 95% projects (in the last decade) with minimal scrutiny/field verification – turning a safeguard mechanism into a clearance factory.
  • Public hearings have been curtailed or undermined, reducing affected communities to mere spectators in decisions affecting their survival.

Challenges and Way Ahead

• Court decision emboldens non-compliance – Ensure judicial review remains a bulwark against environmental dilution.
• Weakens deterrence against polluting industries – Reinforce prior environmental clearance as an inviolable principle.
• Erodes public trust in regulatory institutions – Strengthen EIA processes with mandatory public hearings.
• Increased ecological degradation in forests, coasts, tribal areas – Restore broadened definition of forests and safeguard ecological hotspots.
• Conflict between economic expediency and environmental justice – Reform expert appraisal committees for transparency and accountability. Align national regulations with global climate commitments and SDGs.

Conclusion

• The SC’s approval of post-facto environmental clearances marks a troubling departure from India’s progressive environmental jurisprudence.
• In a country where millions breathe toxic air and ecological degradation is rampant, weakening preventive safeguards threatens constitutional rights and intergenerational equity.
• History may judge this moment as a turning point when environmental protection gave way to administrative convenience—unless corrective steps are taken urgently.

Post-Facto Environmental Clearances FAQs

Q1. What is the constitutional basis of prior environmental clearance in India?

Ans. Prior environmental clearance flows from Article 21, which guarantees the right to a healthy environment as part of the Right to Life.

Q2. What are the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision to allow post-facto environmental clearances?

Ans. The judgment legitimises violations, weakens preventive environmental governance, and undermines jurisprudence safeguarding environmental rights.

Q3. How have recent policy changes diluted environmental safeguards in India?

Ans. Through measures like EIA 2020, FCA amendments, CRZ 2018, B2 exemptions, and fast-tracking of clearances with minimal scrutiny.

Q4. Why is public participation considered a cornerstone of environmental democracy?

Ans. Public participation ensures community oversight, transparency, and accountability, especially through EIAs and public hearings.

Q5. What are the challenges arising from sectoral exemptions such as the B2 category?

Ans. It bypasses EIAs and public hearings, enabling high-impact industrial activities to operate without adequate environmental assessment.

Source: IE