© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The tussle between Punjab Governor Banwarilal Purohit and Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann, which has been ongoing for more than a year now, reached its zenith earlier this week after the Governor issued a final warning to Mann, asking him to respond to his queries on a range of issues, including drug abuse in Punjab, failing which Purohit said he would send a report to President Droupadi Murmu.
Purohit sent the letter on Friday, 25 days after a reminder to the CM to reply to previous unanswered letters. But this time, it was a warning. While the Governor did not directly say he would recommend President’s Rule in the state, he implied it by saying he was contemplating sending a report to Murmu under Article 356. A state is brought under direct rule of the Centre with the invocation of Article 356, usually after a report is sent by the Governor.
“Before I … take a final decision regarding sending a report to the President of India under Article 356 about the failure of the constitutional mechanism and take a decision about initiating criminal proceedings under Section 124 of the IPC, I ask you to send me the requisite information sought under my letters … as also in the matter of the steps taken by you concerning the problem of drugs in the state, failing which I would have no choice but to take action according to the law and the Constitution,” Purohit said. Section 124 relates to assaulting or wrongfully restraining the President or a Governor from exercising their lawful powers.
The Aam Aadmi Party’s (AAP) spokesperson Malvinder Singh Kang said the government was working within the constitutional framework and that if President’s Rule were to be imposed in Punjab, it should be done in Manipur and Haryana. Those are two BJP-ruled states that have seen communal violence recently. “The Governor should maintain decorum and not threaten Article 356. If they want to implement President’s Rule, it should be done in Manipur and Haryana,” he said.
Mann on Saturday targeted the Governor, saying, “The threat which the Governor gave to the people of Punjab, peace-loving people of the state … I will call it a threat of imposition of the President’s Rule … I do not know how he dared to write such a letter. The 3.5 crore Punjabis will take note of it. Punjab has suffered most in the past due to (Article) 356. Punjabis would not want it again. I am telling the Governor through Punjabis not to do this.”
Constant confrontation
The confrontation started in July 2022 after the Governor visited border areas in the state and said drugs were being sold openly in the state and illegal sand mining was rampant. The latest confrontation shows that the Raj Bhavan has decided to step up the heat on the Mann administration. The last time the state saw President’s Rule was in the late 1980s during the Khalistani separatist movement.
The tussle reached the Supreme Court last year when the Governor did not give his permission to call a special session of the Vidhan Sabha during which the government was set to table a resolution against “Operation Lotus”, which the AAP alleged was the BJP’s attempt to poach its MLAs. The government moved the top court, which said the Governor is duty-bound to accept the recommendations of Cabinet on the convening of the Assembly. But the court also told the CM to respond to the Governor’s letters.
This year, the AAP government stopped getting the Assembly session prorogued or officially discontinued by the Governor. When a session adjourns sine die, the government sends a communication to the Governor to get it prorogued. When the next session is to be summoned, the Governor’s approval is required. But in this case, since the government was not getting the session prorogued, the Speaker summoned the next session.
Since the Budget Session this year was never prorogued, the following session becomes a continuation of the Budget Session rather than the Monsoon Session. Instead, the Assembly held a special session starting in June, with the Monsoon Session yet to be held. The AAP has taken a similar approach in the Delhi government, too, where it has been at odds with the Lieutenant Governor.
During the Assembly’s special session — whose legal sanctity was subsequently questioned by the Governor who claimed since the previous Budget Session had not been prorogued the Assembly could only pass finance Bills — the government passed several contentious Bills that further escalated tensions between the Purohit and the Mann administration.
The Assembly passed the Punjab University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2023, which removed the Governor as the Chancellor of state universities. The Bill proposed to vest the powers of the Chancellor of state universities with the Chief Minister instead. The Bill was introduced following a dispute between Mann and Purohit over the selection of Vice-Chancellors (V-C) of various universities, including the appointment of Dr Gurpreet Wander as the V-C of Baba Farid University of Health Sciences. Wander’s appointment was blocked by the Governor who said it was his duty to make the appointment from a list of names proposed by the government.
The Assembly also passed the Punjab Police (Amendment) Bill, 2023, which sought to introduce an independent mechanism for the appointment of the Director General of Police, and the Sikh Gurdwaras (Amendment) Bill, 2023, which was aimed at freeing the rights to telecast Gurbani — hymns from the Guru Granth Sahib — from the undue control of the television channel PTC owned by the Badal family.
In June, the Governor also objected to the CM calling him “vela (an idler)” and threatened legal action for “derogatory language”, including referring to his letters as “love letters”. The two also locked horns over Purohit using government helicopters to visit border areas. Purohit has since stopped using government choppers.
Purohit and Mann also clashed over accusations of sexual misconduct against Cabinet Minister Lal Chand Kataruchak in June. The Governor raised the issue in a letter asking the government to take action. In one of its few responses to such letters, the government said the complaint had been withdrawn, though Purohit claimed it was withdrawn under pressure from the government.
Leader of the Opposition Partap Singh Bajwa of the Congress has said he does not support placing the state under President’s Rule in principle. But, if it came to that, he would hold the CM responsible, Bajwa added. “He will have to write back. He has to address the Governor’s concerns. He needs to honour the Governor. What will the people of the state do in this time of crisis due to floods when two constitutional heads are fighting? Yet, it is not a fit case of Article 356 at all. If anything happens then Mann’s attitude will be responsible for it … He should not create a constitutional crisis. He should not sit on the false ego. He should sit with the Governor and sort this out instead of exhibiting his immaturity.”
The Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) has accused the AAP of deliberately adopting a “confrontationist attitude” for political gain. Senior SAD leader Daljit Singh Cheema said, “After AAP’s failure to project itself as a victim on the issue of the Delhi Services Act, Kejriwal is now misleading the Punjab Chief Minister with the ulterior motive of taking political advantage nationally in case the government is dismissed. By doing so, AAP is betraying the mandate of Punjabis who will never trust the party again if it runs away from its responsibilities in such a manner.”
