Governor-government standoff has given rise to questions about the need for a constitutional post
Governor-government standoff has given rise to questions about the need for a constitutional post
Kerala is in the grip of debate whether Governor Arif Mohammad Khan is depriving the state government of its jurisdiction. The CPI(M)-led LDF government and the Congress-led UDF opposition have, in varying degrees, accused Mr Khan of overworking his role as the nominal head of the executive. The governor’s repeated defense of the Center and questioning the decisions of the Kerala government makes him a victim of criticism that the Raj Bhavan is breaking the elected government by crossing its constitutional limits.
On the eve of the budget session of the Legislative Assembly in Kerala, the matter caught fire when Mr. Khan refused to give his consent to the policy address of the government for the next financial year. The governor was reportedly upset that the government had objected in principle to his staff appointing a BJP leader in the role of an alleged advisor. Amid media speculation that a telephone call between constitutional bodies was not going well, Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan arrived at the Raj Bhavan to avert a constitutional crisis. The government finally settled the legal tussle by removing the bureaucrat who had reminded the Raj Bhavan in writing that there was no precedent for the appointment of politically active persons to the office of the governor.
The CPI, a key ally of the LDF, and the Congress-led UDF opposition slammed the government for “pacifying” the governor and removing the bureaucrat, who had only apprised the governor of the administration’s status. He said that the governor has no option but to approve the policy address approved by the cabinet. However, it seemed that Mr Khan had hijacked the government with a “toy gun”.
But the government soon realized that tensions with Mr. Khan had not subsided. The governor, in conflict with the government, indicated that the top political executive had repeatedly expressed doubts about the veracity 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 that he had urged Mr Vijayan to “cancel” the proposal to give pension to political appointments in ministerial offices after at least two-and-a-half years in office. He wanted the decision to be included in the policy address.
Mr Khan has also drawn criticism for his statements on sensitive incidents both within and outside the state. Recently, he said that the hijab controversy in Karnataka was a “conspiracy” and that students should follow the rules of the institutions. In 2020, he refused to convene a special session of the Assembly to pass a resolution against agricultural laws and the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.
As a result, the CPI(M) is taking a drastic step between maintaining the prerogatives of the elected state government and avoiding confrontation with the Raj Bhavan. CPI(M) state secretary Kodiyeri Balakrishnan said the ruling front wanted cordial relations with the governor, based on constitutional values and humble discourse. But the party, he said, will take the lead if called upon to defend constitutional propriety and federalism. He also questioned the need for the office of Governor and demanded its abolition. Notably, the Kerala Cabinet highlighted a similar approach to the Justice Madan Mohan Punchhi Commission appointed by the central government to report on the need for a reset in Centre-State relations.
The confrontation is not limited to Kerala. The Tamil Nadu and West Bengal governments are also raising questions about the limits of the Centre’s authority and rallying to protect the powers reserved for the states under the Constitution.
anand.g@thehindu.co.in
,