A disquieting trend in governor's actions

Tamil Nadu governor RN Ravi's actions should serve as a reminder that governors have limited powers and very little discretion under the Indian Constitution

- PDT Achary

The governor of Tamil Nadu, RN Ravi, experimented with a rare kind of constitutional adventurism by dismissing a sitting minister without being advised by the chief minister (CM). Of course, within hours of issuing the order, he kept it in abeyance. This action has caused consternation in political circles and shocked constitutionalists. The governor later revealed that the Union home ministry advised him to seek the opinion of the attorney general. It is baffling that such an unprecedented order — dismissing a minister of a government that enjoys an absolute majority in the assembly, without the mandatory advice of the CM — was issued without consulting the country’s top law officer.

The crucial constitutional question is whether the governor has the power to dismiss a minister without the advice of the CM. A minister is appointed by the governor under Article 164, on the advice of the CM. This provision makes it very clear that the governor can appoint as a minister only a person recommended by the CM. It is entirely the prerogative of the CM to select or drop his ministers. If the CM wants to drop a minister, he accordingly advises the governor, who issues the order. This is the practice in all countries that follow a parliamentary system of government.

Article 164 of the Constitution says, “The ministers shall hold office during the pleasure of the governor,” which may give an impression that the survival of a minister depends entirely on the pleasure of the governor, and that the latter can withdraw his pleasure at will.