© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi’s decision Thursday dismissing arrested minister V Senthil Balaji tests the constitutional limitations on the role of the Governor and pushes the Raj Bhavan into uncharted political territory.
Article 164 (1) of the Constitution states that the Chief Minister shall be appointed by the Governor and “the other Ministers shall be appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister, and the Ministers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor”.
However, a line of Supreme Court rulings have interpreted that power of the Governor primarily flows from the “aid and advice” of the Council of Ministers.
In Shamsher Singh v State of Punjab, a 1974 ruling by a seven-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court said that a Governor must exercise “formal constitutional powers only upon, and in accordance with the aid and advice of their ministers, save in a few well-known exceptional situations”.
These exceptions relate to dismissal of a government that has lost its majority, the decision to invite a party to form the government – both circumstances where the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers is unavailable or unreliable.
The “pleasure” of the Governor is understood to flow from the fact that the government enjoys majority on the floor of the House.
Former Secretary General of Lok Sabha PDT Achary told The Indian Express that it is perhaps the first instance of a Governor sacking an individual minister without the consent of the Chief Minister. “I cannot recall any such instance previously. Without the advice of the Chief Minister, a Governor can neither appoint or dismiss a minister,” Achary said.
Last year, Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan had written to Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, asking him to take “constitutionally appropriate action” against state Finance Minister K N Balagopal and cautioned against a possible “withdrawal of pleasure”.
In response, Vijayan, at a press conference, said that the Governor‘s powers were “very limited” on the issue.
The Supreme Court, in its ruling in February this year in the case relating to the political crisis in the Maharashtra government, cautioned against the Governor stepping in to settle political rivalry.
“He (the Governor) cannot exercise a power that is not conferred on him by the Constitution or a law made under it,” the Supreme Court said.
“They certainly do not empower the Governor to enter the political arena and play a role (however minute) either in inter-party disputes or intra-party disputes,” it said.
