000			02112pab a2200193 454500
008			180718b2017 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
100			_aChakraborty, Bidyut
245			_aReconceptualising gubernatorial 'discretionary' authority: an Indian perspective
260			_c2017
300			_ap.352-371.
362			_aSep
520			_aIn constitutional governance, discretionary authority is a source of intense theoretical debate. For the classical liberals, discretion does not seem to be entirely incompatible with the actualisation of constitutional democracy; in fact, it is hailed as an aid to the system of governance, being instituted to realise the politico-ideological goal drawn on the fundamental ethos of liberal democracy. Being paternalistic in their approach, the classical liberals thus greeted British colonialism for its 'self-assigned' role of civilising the uncivilised. Guided by its so-called civilising mission, the alien state was allowed to retain the discretionary authority as integral to its primary ideological goal in India. With India's Independence, the idea was challenged, but not entirely discarded showing perhaps the continuity of some of the major constitutional principles that had evolved in the wake of the British rule in India. The logical justification of gubernatorial discretion needs to be understood in this perspective, though the scene had undergone a sea change in post-Independence India following the democratic upsurges leading to the spreading out of political space in areas which so far had remained peripheral. Discretionary authority is now not only an anathema to democratic governance but also a retrogressive constitutional design. Not only is this argument being forcefully made at the level of demos, this is also being endorsed by the Indian judiciary which discarded discretion as undemocratic and unconstitutional. - Reproduced.
650			_aDiscretionary power - India
650			_aExecutive power - India
650			_aIndia - President
650			_aPresidents
773			_aIndian Journal of Public Administration
909			_a116202
999			_c116196 _d116196