Tussle between Stalin, N Ravi: When Tamil Nadu govt opposed the Governor’ post 50 years ago

I have written to Hon’ble @rashtrapatibhvn apprising about the unconstitutional functioning of the Tamil Nadu Governor, his disregard for elected government and the state legislature, and overreach in state affairs. The Governor’s acts of delaying assent to bills, interfering… pic.twitter.com/GQMFaw6anU

— M.K.Stalin (@mkstalin) July 9, 2023

In the latest amid a long-running clash between the CM and the Governor, since the latter assumed the post in 2021, Stalin said Ravi’s functioning was “unconstitutional”. He added that Ravi disregarded the elected government and the legislature, and delayed assent to Bills. The CM called Ravi “unfit for the office of Governor” and requested the President to “consider removing him from the high constitutional position”.

But even before the ongoing tensions over the role of a Governor in a democratic set-up, Tamil Nadu has been vocal about its criticisms of the post of Governor – going back nearly 50 years. We take a look.

The role of Governor in Centre-state relations

The year 1967 marked a shift in Indian politics. Until then, state and national elections were held simultaneously and the Indian National Congress was largely unrivalled electorally. However, the 1967 General Elections marked the first time that the Congress did not secure a thumping majority, though it still won 283 seats in the 520-member Lok Sabha. It also lost nine states, including Madras (now known as Tamil Nadu).

This had been the first election amid a changed environment, with the death of Jawaharlal Nehru. The loss of the 1962 war with China and a less-than-optimum economic situation further left many voters disillusioned with the party.

With newer parties and leaders in the states and Congress at the Centre, Centre-state relations were tested. The Shiromani Akali Dal in Punjab, the Telugu Desam Party in Andhra Pradesh, and the state governments of West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and the North-East were, therefore, hoping for a review of the overall Constitutional scheme of Centre-State relations and the provisions for resolving disputes between them.

In 1969, the government commissioned the Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC), which came out with its detailed Report on Centre-State Relationships. On the Governor, it said that she should be appointed by the President after consultation with the CM, should perform her constitutional role, and make periodic reports on administration.

It largely favoured sticking to the existing system, saying it was capable enough to address any issues that may arise later. Later, The Indian Express reported on July 10, 1973, that Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi read out the memo from the state’s own memo that criticised the ARC.

The Indian Express report from July 10, 1973.

“The way in which, and the frequency with which the Centre and Parliament have sought to insert themselves and to interfere in matters relating exclusively to state subjects, create the impression of an anxiety on the part of the Centre to exercise an overall supervision of the entire administration of the whole country,” the memo said.

What Tamil Nadu’s reports said

After he became the CM in 1969, Karunanidhi spoke about setting up an expert committee on Centre-state relations. Months later, his government appointed a committee headed by PV Rajamannar, former Madras High Court Chief Justice, and their report came out in 1971.

Its aim was “to examine the entire question regarding the relationship that should subsist between the Centre and the States in a federal set up, with reference to the provisions of the Constitution of India, and to suggest suitable amendments to the Constitution so as to secure to the States the utmost autonomy.” This was in line with the ideal championed since long by the state’s two main political parties, the AIADMK and the DMK.

In its report, the Rajamannar Commission gave some unique suggestions. It stated that recruitment to the all-India services (such as the Indian Administrative Service and the Indian Police Service), should be either by transfer of members of the existing gazetted services under the control of the States, or by direct recruitment. This would be to bring the services under states’ control.

On the Governor, it said the Constitution should have a new clause inserted, enabling the President to issue “Instruments of Instructions” to the Governors. These would lay down guidelines, indicating the matters where the Governor should consult the Central Government or where the Central Government could issue directions to him. It said Articles 356 and 357, which deal with the Centre’s power to impose a state of emergency in the states, may be “totally omitted”. “In the alternative, sufficient safeguards should be provided in the Constitution itself to secure the interests of the States against the arbitrary and unilateral action of the ruling party at the Centre,” it said.

In response, the Tamil Nadu government then presented the ‘Tamil Nadu Government views on State Autonomy and the Rajamannar Committee Report’ in the state’s Legislative Assembly in 1974. Here, it termed the office of Governor as “a legacy of the British colonial system” and the method of her appointment as “an anachronism in a democratic set up”.

It stated, “He is a functionary appointed by, and responsible to, the Central Government and as such, he could not be expected to understand the local conditions and the political situation.” It said the expenditure incurred on her office “does not seem to square with the socialistic pattern of society.”

Going a step further in its criticism, it said, “The expenditure is a wasteful one, which could well be dispensed with… The time is ripe for doing away with the office of the Governor.” The CM would instead discharge the functions at present being attended to by the Governor.

It also presented alternatives, saying in situations where the office of Chief Minister falls vacant by death, resignation, etc., the successor should be elected within a fixed period of time, otherwise the Assembly will automatically be dissolved. The Chief Justice of the State may take charge of the administration till such time as a new Chief Minister assumes Office, it added.

However, none of these recommendations were accepted. In light of the recent tussle with Governor N Ravi, DMK has often made references to the post in a similar vein. In December 2022, MLA T R B Rajaa said on Twitter that the post of Governor is ‘probably the most useless’ thing in democracy.

Taking from the state’s history, the MLA referenced a Tamil saying from DMK founder CN Annadurai, who was the CM before Karunanidhi, from 1967 to 1969. In it, Annadurai asks if a goat requires a beard and whether a State needs a Governor, implying that both are unnecessary.