No justification for Governor Ravi’s act

Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi’s order dismissing minister Senthil Balaji was a most egregious violation of the Constitution, and the revocation of the decision within hours on Thursday night does not mitigate its seriousness. The governor conveyed his decision to Chief Minister M K Stalin, invoking Articles 153, 163 and 164 of the Constitution, which deal with the executive power of the State being vested in the governor. He said that his earlier communication to the chief minister to remove the minister, who has been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a corruption case, had not been acted upon and so he was taking the action himself. But soon after that he also wrote to the chief minister that the decision had been held in abeyance on advice from the Union Home Ministry and the matter has been referred to the attorney-general. 

It does not require much knowledge of the Constitution to know that the governor does not have the power to dismiss a minister. The governor appoints ministers on the advice of the chief minister and he can dismiss them only on such advice. This elementary norm in a parliamentary democracy was flouted by the governor when he decided to dismiss the minister. This is the first time such a coup against the Constitution was attempted in the county. Even the Union Home Ministry, which has not found anything wrong with the governors’ actions in all their unseemly confrontations with the governments in Opposition-ruled states, could not accept the Tamil Nadu governor’s action. Ravi tried to save his face by keeping his order in abeyance rather than retracting it,but it is clear that there was realisation that it was wrong. Perhaps it was the prospect of the governor’s action being struck down by the court that forced him to backtrack.

Governor Ravi has fought with the state government on a number of issues and tried to interfere with the administration. Any number of Supreme Court judgments have made it clear that the governor has no independent powers and discretion on most issues. In Shamsher Singh vs State of Punjab, 1974, a seven-judge Constitution bench said that the governor must exercise his powers “only upon and in accordance with the aid and advice of the council of ministers, save in a few well-known exceptional situations”. The latest is the most blatant case. Ravi has gone beyond the limits set by the Constitution and posed a serious threat to its federal scheme, and made his own position most untenable.