Editorial: Overstepping constitutional limits

TN Governor’s unprecedented action to dismiss Minister Senthil Balaji defies all logic and constitutional procedures

The role of Governors has increasingly come under scanner in the last few years because of their blatantly partisan approach. The NDA government’s oft-repeated claim of ‘Team India’ spirit flies in its face as the constitutional positions have been turned into political tools to target non-BJP governments. The latest developments in Tamil Nadu strengthen the fears over the gross misuse of gubernatorial positions. Governor RN Ravi’s unprecedented action to dismiss Minister V Senthil Balaji, citing criminal proceedings against him in cases of corruption and money laundering, defies all logic and constitutional procedures. The outrageous move reflects unabashed misuse of authority resulting in the escalation of the conflict between the Raj Bhavan and the DMK government. Though the Governor kept his order in abeyance pending legal advice, the damage is already done. There is all-round condemnation of Ravi’s action as the Constitution does not permit Governors to sack any minister. According to Supreme Court orders and Constitution experts, Governors cannot take such steps without the advice of the Council of Ministers. In 2013, the Supreme Court observed that if Governors did not act upon the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, democracy itself would be in peril. In this case, the Governor’s order has come in spite of Chief Minister MK Stalin deciding to retain Senthil Balaji as a Minister without portfolio.

The Minister was arrested on June 14 in a cash-for-jobs scam and is in judicial custody as the case is being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate. A similar controversy surfaced last year after Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan wrote to Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan asking him to take “constitutionally appropriate action”, a euphemism for dismissal, against Finance Minister KN Balagopal who “ceased to enjoy” his pleasure. The instances of Governors overstepping their constitutional limits and indulging in politicking are occurring in Telangana, Bengal and Punjab too. Like her Tamil Nadu counterpart, Telangana Governor Tamilisai Soundararajan too has been adopting an uncooperative attitude and trying to create a constitutional impasse by refusing to act on several Bills passed by the State legislature. Though the Constitution does not prescribe a time limit for Governors to approve, withhold assent or reserve Bills for the consideration of the President, courtesy and conventions demand that they be cleared swiftly so that the functioning of the Executive is not adversely affected. Article 163 of the Constitution acts as a source of the discretionary power of a Governor. As the union government nominates Governors, the combined effect with Article 163 provides the scope for the Centre meddling in the States’ affairs. It is time the country took up a wider national debate on the relevance of the Governor’s office at a time when it is being used as a political tool.

---