© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
TAMIL NADU Governor R N Ravi put on hold his unprecedented order dismissing arrested minister V Senthil Balaji after the state BJP unit raised an alarm, reportedly reaching out to the central leadership over the “blunder” and its “constitutional implications”.
A senior BJP leader told The Indian Express that while it was alright for politicians to “demand the dismissal of ministers” — which they routinely do, like in 2018 when the DMK called for the sacking of AIADMK minister C Vijayabaskar – they also realised that a Governor “could not act upon the same” unilaterally.
“We were shocked to see Governor Ravi failing to see its implications and dismissing the minister,” the BJP leader said, denouncing Ravi’s “heroics”.
In the notification saying he was putting the dismissal “in abeyance”, Ravi indicated a message had come from the Centre, saying he had been “advised by the Union Minister of Home Affairs that it would be prudent to seek the opinion of the Attorney General also” on the matter.
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”
A BJP leader pointed out that Ravi may have ended up helping the DMK due to the whole episode. “Ravi’s rash dismissal of Balaji will end up easing the pressure on the DMK over the matter. Balaji’s brother has been absconding for 25 days. (Chief Minister M K) Stalin is worried about the whole episode. Suddenly, all these significant issues seem inconsequential in the face of Ravi’s move. The narrative has shifted to the blunders made by the Governor.”
Another BJP leader gave Ravi the benefit of the doubt, saying that while “the precedent for dismissing a government was established in the S R Bommai case (which laid down the supremacy of the floor test in determining the support enjoyed by the party in power), a “minister’s dismissal remains a grey area”.
“The problem with police officers (Ravi is a retired IPS officer) is that they look at the law as black and white. They fail to see the grey areas,” the leader said.
The BJP was also worried about the larger implications of Ravi’s move, which was another reason it may have acted promptly. The party feared that the precedent set by Ravi could lead to “complete constitutional collapse”. “Many more Governors could do the same.”
Moreover, already under attack from states for “undermining federalism”, it did not want to be associated with any action that would be hard to justify in court — particularly in a state as sensitive to the issue as Tamil Nadu.
On talk that Ravi might have finally crossed the line as Governor and could be moved out, a leader said they hoped he would have learnt his lesson. “Changing the Governor now might provide more ammunition to our opponents.”
Publicly, the BJP, led by its state president K Annamalai, sought to argue that while in opposition, Stalin had led the DMK’s demand to dismiss minister Vijayabhaskar.
Accusing Stalin of “protecting” Balaji, Annamalai sought to dodge the issue of Ravi’s actions, saying: “This matter will get resolved only after a legal tussle.”
In his five-page letter to Stalin informing him of Balaji’s removal, Ravi wrote, “Your insistence to retain Balaji against my advice reflects your unhealthy bias,” adding that the obstruction of “the due process of law” could eventually lead to the breakdown of constitutional machinery in the state.
