| 
- The two most delicate and sensitive sets of provisions of India's Constitution pertain to the relations between the President and the Prime Minister at the Centre and the Governors and Chief Ministers in the States.
- Even the appearance of a divergence of approaches at those levels can do much harm, and any attempt on their part to disregard the bounds set by the Constitution, and allow their mutual relations to sour can vitiate the sanctity of the Constitution and pose a danger to the security and stability of the country itself.
- However, it is natural for personalities with their own public standing to have honest differences of opinion.
- For instance, Rajendra Prasad and Jawaharlal Nehru did not see eye to eye on the connotation of secularism and the Hindu Code Bill, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan chided Nehru in public on the China policy. Indeed, the nation passed through some anxious moments over rumours that the Giani was even preparing himself to dismiss Rajiv Gandhi on other grounds.
- Fortunately for India, the relations between the Presidents and the Prime Ministers have largely been exemplary.
- India's long experience as a functioning democratic republic has apparently not been sufficient to bring a degree of maturity and mellowness to bear on the relations between the Governors and Chief Ministers.
- The recent spats in Karnataka and Gujarat further lays bare the continuing fragility and volatility in the relations between the two
- The Sarkaria Commision on Centre-State Relations had listed a number of criteria in this regard, such as: Excluding persons with a political background or hoping to be active in politics and, in particular, not appointing a politician from the ruling party/combine at the Centre to a State run by another party/combine. It also laid down that the Vice-President of India and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha should have a say in the choice, and there should be effective prior consultation with the Chief Minister as well. These recommendations have remained a dead letter.
- The confusion over the role arises from some of the Governors viewing themselves as agents of the Centre and not as the first servants of the States to which they are posted, binding themselves by their oath to devote themselves “to the service and well-being of the people of the State”.
- These dichotomies deserve to be thrashed out in a meeting of the National Integration Council and proper guidelines framed to ensure harmonious relations among the top Constitutional authorities.
