Kerala is gripped by a debate on whether Governor Arif Mohammad Khan is denying the State government its jurisdictional powers. The CPI(M)-led LDF government and the Congress-led UDF opposition have in varying degrees accused Mr. Khan of often acting in excess of his role as the nominal head of the executive. The Governor’s frequent defence of the Centre and questioning of the Kerala government’s decisions have rendered him vulnerable to criticism that the Raj Bhavan is subverting the elected government by overstepping its constitutional boundaries.
Matters came to a head in Kerala on the eve of the budget session of the Assembly when Mr. Khan refused to give his assent to the government’s policy address for the next fiscal. The Governor was reportedly upset that the government had in principle objected to his appointing a BJP leader on his staff in a purportedly advisory role. Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan scrambled to the Raj Bhavan to avert a constitutional crisis amid media speculation that a telephone call between the constitutional entities had not gone well. The government finally sidestepped the legal quandary by removing the bureaucrat who reminded the Raj Bhavan in writing that there was no precedent for appointing persons active in politics in the Governor’s office.
The CPI, a prominent LDF ally, and the Congress-led UDF opposition slammed the government for “placating” the Governor and for removing the bureaucrat who had merely conveyed the administration’s position to the Governor. They said the Governor had no recourse but to approve the policy address ratified by the Cabinet. However, Mr. Khan, it seemed, had hijacked the government with a “toy gun”.
But the government soon realised that tensions had not eased with Mr. Khan. The Governor upped the ante in the conflict with the government by hinting that the top political executive recurrently circulated scepticism about the rightfulness of the Raj Bhavan’s decisions and warned that any attempt to “control the Raj Bhavan would lead to a constitutional crisis.” Mr. Khan also said he had urged Mr. Vijayan to “scrap” the proposal to extend pension to political appointees in ministerial offices after a minimum tenure of two-and-a-half years. He wanted the decision included in the policy address.
Mr. Khan has also drawn criticism for his statements on sensitive developments unfolding both within and outside the State. Recently, he said that the hijab row in Karnataka was a “conspiracy” and that students must follow the rules of institutions. In 2020, he refused to convene a special session of the Assembly to pass resolutions against the farm laws and the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.
As a result, the CPI(M) has been walking a tightrope between preserving the prerogative of the elected State government and avoiding confrontation with the Raj Bhavan. CPI(M) State secretary Kodiyeri Balakrishnan said the ruling front desired a harmonious relationship with the Governor, moored to constitutional values and courteous discourse. But the party, he said, would take up the gauntlet if called to defend constitutional propriety and federalism. He also questioned the need for the Governor’s office and demanded its abolishment. Notably, the Kerala Cabinet expounded a similar view to the Justice Madan Mohan Punchhi Commission, appointed by the Central government to report on the need for a reset in the Central-State relationship.
The confrontation is not restricted to Kerala. The Tamil Nadu and West Bengal governments too have been raising questions about the limits of the Centre’s authority and are rallying to protect the powers reserved for the States under the Constitution.
anand.g@thehindu.co.in
