By Dr.Ashoka Jahnavi PrasadMuch has been written about Justice Sathasivam's appointment as the Governor of Kerala. And much continues to be written as the debate goes on!Whether the former Chief Justice ,technically the Chief Deemster of Justice and head of the judiciary indulge in a constitutional impropriety of whether the government of the day conveyed the impression of rewarding him still remains very much an open question.Leading the charge from the Congress (I) was former Cabinet Minister Anand Sharma who seemed to have no doubts at all that this was a case of quid pro quo and hence highly improper. He pointed out that as a Chief Justice, Justice Sathasivam had administered oath to the President of India and now he was occupying the gubernatorial position which would make him subservient to the President at whose pleasure he would continue to hold office. There were others who were equally critical and they did not belong to any political formation.Some very senior members of the Bar had expressed reservations . There were others like Justice Markandey Katju who wrote a lengthy column in favour of Justice Sathasivam in today's Times of India. The debate still rages on.It can be stated that the appointment of the former head of the judicial arm to a position which has profound political ramifications like that of the governor can give rise to some legitimate concerns. A holder of a constitutional post should ideally be a person who is above the lure of active politics.Certain precedents have been cited eg. appointment of Justice Ranganath Mishra to the Rajya Sabha by the Congress (I) almost immediately after demitting office has been extensively cited.However the debate has been somewhat stymied as some very important points have been overlooked. If the real danger is that a holder of a constitutional post is likely to be compromised by the lure of the executive, then there has been instances far more egregious and outlandish in the history of independent India which should have been highlighted. One just has to peruse through the history of the early days of independent India to find an instance of a blatant constitutional impropriety that was effected by the Indian National Congress (not the present Congress I ). Chakravarthy Rajagopalachari was the Governor General of India from June 1948 to January 1950. Technically his was the highest constitutional position in India as he represented the monarch. In the order of precedence ,he was over and above the Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. Immediately after demitting the office, he was inducted into Nehru's Cabinet as a Minister without Portfolio. Later on when Patel died,he was appointed the Home Minister.But that was not all. In 1952, the Madras Governor Sri Prakash appointed him the Chief Minister of Madras after nominating him to the Legislative Council -he was not even a member of the Legislative Assembly. As the CM ,he played an active part in day to day politics. None other than the quintessential Gandhi family loyalist P.C.Alexander was constrained to remark:'The most conspicuous case of constitutional impropriety by the Governor in the exercise of discretion to choose the Chief Minister, took place in 1952 when the then Governor of Madras, Sri Prakasa, invited Rajagopalachari to form the government in the composite State'Like the Chief Justice,the Speaker of the Lok Sabha also holds an exalted position being the head of the legislature where he is supposed to exercise supervisory functions over all the elected members of the lower house which generally includes the Prime Minister. People of my generation would vividly recall what happened in 1975. Gurdial Singh Dhillon ,the Speaker of the Lok Sabha was asked to step down by the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and made Minister for Shipping. This single act on the part of the them Prime Minister compromised the position of the Speaker as never before and set a very unhealthy precedent which has allowed many a holder of this position to harbour political ambitions and participate in active politics after demitting office.I have deliberately mentioned these instances to illustrate how the constitutional posts have been systematically politicized over the years -which is what gives rise to the concerns that have arisen over this appointment. The Congress (I) has not been above this tendency notwithstanding its protests. When we look at the international context,the Irish system which most closely resembles ours has set precedents which are never disturbed -and one of those sacrosanct precedents is that the Speaker's position should go to a person who has acquired sufficient distinction who has foresaken any political ambitions. They have borrowed this from the Westminster where it would be well nigh unthinkable for a Speaker to be inducted into the Cabinet.The United States system does not adhere to these customs and the Speaker there is known to indulge in active politics. But the constitutional separation of the executive,judiciary and the legislature is such that an egregious impropriety is unlikely.There has been an instance where the executive head viz. the President has been elected to the Senate after demitting office( Andrew Johnson) and yet another when a President after demitting office has been appointed the Chief Justice (William Taft).However we in India do not have the luxury of the constitutional separation that the United States does. It would therefore be in our interest to have a comprehensive debate on the overall propriety of appointing the holder of a constitutional position to another whether politics runs the roost. And the sooner we have it the better.Looking at Justice Sathasivam's outstanding credentials, one hopes that he would never indulge in a constitutional impropriety. But some valid questions have been raised about the whole process. It is up to us to seek answers.Dr.Ashoka Jahnavi Prasad is a medical academic also holding doctorates in philosophy and history and a qualified barrister, currently based in India .