Governor’s move
The context of the Supreme Court of India judgment in 1979 is something different as the person in question was a Chief Minister and the case related to the question whether the Chief Minister is a public servant or not (Inside pages, “Appointment authority is also dismissing authority, said SC in M. Karunanidhi vs Union of India”, June 30). What is stated in the judgment is purely an opinion of the judges on an issue not directly connected to the case. It is an obiter dictum.
Even for argument’s sake, if one could say by citing the above judgment, that the appointing authority is also a dismissing authority, then the very appointment of a Minister is made on the advice of the Chief Minister. When it is clear that the appointment of the Minister is made on the advice of the Chief Minister, then the dismissal should also be only on the advice of the Chief Minister. The Governor, for whatever reason it might be, cannot dismiss a Minister arbitrarily without the advice of the Chief Minister.
In the present case, the person in question is a Minister and it is the prerogative of the Chief Minister to have or drop a person from the Council of Ministers. At best, the Governor can only communicate his observation on the issue and offer his suggestion to the Chief Minister. If the Governor could remove the Minister on his own, and such action is accepted, then the question arises on who the head of the Council of Ministers is.
On May 31, 1949, B.R. Ambedkar, in the Constituent Assembly debates, declared that according to the Constitution, the Governor will remain a constitutional authority with no power to interfere in administration. The Governor will act only on the advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister. Mr. Kamath and other members of the Constituent Assembly had apprehensions about the role of the Governor, if the Governor took the law into his hands. All the arguments were turned down due to the enormous trust B.R. Ambedkar had in those appointed to the post of Governor.
The Governor of Tamil Nadu is not functioning in accordance with the trust laid on him by the makers of the Constitution.
P.B. Prince Gajendra Babu,
Chennai
The continuing tussle between the Governor and the State government is most unfortunate and does not augur well for the State. The fact that the people of the State have given a clear mandate to the party in power should not be undermined. Having said that, the State Government could have asked the Minister to step down till the case is disproved, and lead by example.
S. Parthasarathy,
Chennai
This will turn out to be the most bizarre and unconstitutional act ever committed by a Governor in post-independence history. The principles of representative parliamentary republican democracy that have been enshrined in the Constitution clearly make the holder of the gubernatorial office a de-jure head. The de facto head is the Chief Minister. The growing trend of Raj Bhavans to act as a parallel administration and undercut elected governments does not bode well for democratic ethos.
Argha Mallick,
Kolkata
