Figurehead threat to federalism

Chief Minister MK Stalin had recently written to Governor RN Ravi, informing him that his ‘unconstitutional’ communique dismissing the arrested minister V Senthilbalaji without the CM’s advice has been disregarded. The CM asserted that the Governor has no authority to sack a minister, and that he had acted in haste with scant regard for the Constitution. The Governor’s letter said he had invoked Articles 153, 163, 164 related to the executive power of the State being vested in the Governor, his acting upon the advice of the Cabinet, and the appointment of the CM and other Ministers. The law says appointment and removal of Ministers falls under the CM’s purview, and the Governor has no discretion in such matters.

The Governor’s act was viewed as unprecedented, unilateral and provocative. It had invited the ire of legal eagles and political parties. Stakeholders had drawn public attention to the case of Shamsher Singh versus State of Punjab (1974) — a landmark judgments on the notion of discretionary powers of the Governor. It was also pointed out that the Supreme Court, in its judgement in the SR Bommai case (1994) as well as in the Shivraj Singh Chouhan case (2020) had ruled that the Governor cannot take a call on administrative issues concerning the State without the advice of the council of ministers headed by the CM.

Here in TN, there are many issues on which the Governor disagreed with the State leadership. A case in point: the Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Bill, and the Anti-NEET Bill. The Governor had cleared them both after much deliberation, which frustrated the ruling party. Governor Ravi’s comments on Sanatana Dharma and his insistence on calling Tamil Nadu Tamizhagam was also criticised.

In January, the Governor walked out of the Assembly after CM Stalin urged the Speaker to take on record only the speech prepared by the State government and redact portions added by the Governor. Recently, Ravi questioned the logic of CM Stalin’s official visit to Singapore and Japan. Political observers have said the Centre has been instrumental in winding the key of polarisation within States. Governors in non-BJP ruled States like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Telangana, West Bengal and Chhattisgarh have hogged headlines owing to differences of opinion with democratically-elected leadership in those States.

Many Governors have exercised their critical powers in ways that have caused heartache to the State leadership — through seeking a review of executive decisions, or even stalling on Bills passed by the State legislature. In March, Punjab CM Bhagwant Mann locked horns with Governor Banwari Lal Purohit over a state government appointment and the selection of school principals for a training trip to Singapore. Purohit had even refused permission to the government to summon the Budget Session of the Assembly.

Such measures come across as poorly-concealed attempts to toe the Hindutva line to reinforce the domination of the ruling party at the Centre. Doing so has serious ramifications not just in the States in question, but also on the structure of cooperative federalism that was envisaged under the Constitution. The trend of Raj Bhavans assuming the seat of power as parallel administrations while undercutting elected governments reflects poorly on democracy.