Governor-State standoff: Ravi and DMK govt are at it again!

CHENNAI: The ruling DMK and the TN Governor R N Ravi are staring at a faceoff, yet again. On this occasion, over Sanatana Dharma. In a recent event organised by the Ayyappa Seva Samaj in Vanagaram to commemorate the 100th year of the devotional song Harivarasanam, Governor Ravi who was among the chief guests besides Telangana Governor Tamilisai Soundararajan, had said that Sanatana Dharma had built Bharat (India). He had also mentioned how the cities of Peshawar and Kandahar were built on the wealth looted from Somnath temple and that the destruction of these cities by Americans was a vindication of Sanatana Dharma. On Sunday, the DMK condemned Governor RN Ravi ‘s comments as they were in contravention of the Constitution. In a release, DMK treasurer and MP TR Baalu said the Governor making such communal statements were not good for the constitutional post he held as they were against the guiding principles of the Constitution. “A person who should propagate secular principles is acting in favour of a particular community and making comments against other communities and is, in fact, instigating violence against them in a public forum,” Baalu said.

In April this year, while passing bills empowering the State government to appoint Vice-Chancellors of universities, Chief Minister MK Stalin said that in the last four years, the State wasn’t consulted by the Governor over appointment of V-Cs and that it did augur well for higher education. Citing the Gujarat University Act, 1949, and the Telangana Universities Act, 1991, the State passed bills to amend the law. Ironically, the Bills were passed even as the Governor was hosting a two-day conference for vice chancellors of state, central and private universities in the State.

The issue of appointing Vice-Chancellors for universities stoked a controversy even during the previous regime when the previous Governor Banwarilal Purohit had appointed MK Surappa as Vice-Chancellor of the Anna University without consulting the State government on the same. The move by the Governor was opposed by the AIADMK government but no concrete action was taken. The tiff between the State government and Governor over appointing V-Cs continued in the new regime, which resulted in the amendments.

Like the standoff over V-C appointments, the State government’s efforts to abolish NEET, the entrance test for medical entrance has been an ongoing issue with the State government passing the anti-NEET Bill and sending it to the Governor, only for the same to remain on his desk. Taking a swipe at the Governor over his inaction over the Bill, Stalin even compared him with a postman and said his job was just to forward the bill to the President of India. This sharp comment came after the Governor sent the anti-NEET bill back to the State government seeking more clarifications in February this year about six months after the Bill was passed in the Assembly and sent to the Governor for his assent. The Governor had cited that the Bill was ‘against interests of the students, specially the rural and economically poor students of the State’. The DMK government passed the anti-NEET Bill in September 2021. After it was returned to the speaker, the legislative assembly passed the Bill a second time and returned it to the Governor. The Bill has now been forwarded to the President for his assent.

The State government and Governor taking opposing stands over sensitive issues is nothing new to TN or for that matter any other state. Close to 30 years ago, the AIADMK government under Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa had a stand-off with then Governor Dr. M Channa Reddy. The distrust between the legislative and constitutional head was so much that an assembly session was even convened without the Governor’s customary address. The AIADMK government had also passed two Bills replacing the state Governor as ‘chancellor’ of universities and replacing him with the Chief Minister. However, both the Bills never got executive assent and lapsed over a period of time.

Articles 153 to 167 of the Constitution of India, which clearly state the role and responsibilities of Governors of states, have been subject to judicial scrutiny in dozens and dozens of cases in courts and have been refined and fine-tuned suitably to comply with the law of the land. The most recent instance when the Supreme Court of India had pulled up the Governor has been in connection with the release of Perarivalan, a convict in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case who has served over 30 years in prison. On May 18, while ordering the release of Perarivalan, the SC invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred on it under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. In its order, the apex court stated the Governor’s action to refer the matter to the President was without any backing in the Constitution, highlighting that the state legislature’s advice was binding with regard to the exercise of powers under Article 161. It also stated that non-exercise of the power under the article or inexplicable delay would be subject to judicial review. “Non-exercise of the power under Article 161 or inexplicable delay in exercise of such power not attributable to the prisoner is subject to judicial review by this Court, especially when the State Cabinet has taken a decision to release the prisoner and made recommendations to the Governor to this effect,” the bench had stated. The SC verdict has been a shot in the arm for the state government which lost no time to reiterate that the Governor’s job was to act on the advice of the elected government and not the other way around.

In states like TN where regional parties continue to rule and national parties have no scope of forming an independent government, Governors, appointed by the center, are always seen as agents of the Union government who are sent to keep a check on the State and act on their advice. The Governor also has powers to recommend dissolution of an elected government.

Under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, if the President, on receipt of a report from the Governor of a State is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution, may dissolve the elected government and replace it with President’s Rule. In TN, President’s rule has been imposed during 1976, 1980, 1988 and 1991. However, arbitrary imposition of President’s Rule has been a lot more restricted following the landmark judgement in the S R Bommai Vs. Union of India case at the SC in 1994.

Since the BJP government has come to power, several states across the country have been pressing for doing away with the Governor’s post as they claim he or she is only a nominal head and a waste of taxpayers' money besides unnecessarily interfering with the day-to-day affairs of the state. Recently, the Kerala government had also demanded that the Centre empowers the state legislatures to remove Governors from their posts if they fail to uphold constitutional values and thwart criminal prosecution measures.

The biggest grouse that State governments have with a Governor is that while they spend crores of rupees in campaign and sweat it out to garner votes and get elected to power, the Governor occupies the plum post upon central government’s recommendation and gets to boss over them on occasions, especially on recommendation of the latter.