Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan reportedly rejected the demand and reasserted his constitutional right to drop or appoint Ministers. In a communique to Raj Bhavan, Mr. Vijayan reportedly asserted that the CM’s advice bound the Governor.
Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan reportedly rejected the demand and reasserted his constitutional right to drop or appoint Ministers. In a communique to Raj Bhavan, Mr. Vijayan reportedly asserted that the CM’s advice bound the Governor.
Kerala Governor Arif Mohammad Khan pushed the Left Democratic Front (LDF) government into a legal- and political crisis by withdrawing his pleasure visa-a-vis the continuation of Finance Minister K. N. Balagopal in office.
In a quick-fire riposte, Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan reportedly rejected the demand and reasserted his constitutional right to drop or appoint Ministers. In a communique to Raj Bhavan, Mr. Vijayan reportedly asserted that the CM’s advice bound the Governor.
The government believed that the “pleasure of the Governor” was restrained by the Chief Minister’s advice as per the Constitution.
Hence, Mr. Khan lacked the constitutional authority to withdraw his pleasure without the Chief Minister’s consent in relation to the continuation of a Minister or the Cabinet in the office.
Scathing letter
In a strongly worded letter to Mr. Vijayan, Mr. Khan took strong exception to Mr. Balagopal’s reported statement that people who were accustomed to practices in places such as Uttar Pradesh would not understand the democratic nature in which universities in Kerala function.
Mr. Khan said Mr. Balagopal had made the indirect comment at a Kerala University’s Karyavattom campus function.
Explained | The office of the Governor: its origins, powers, and controversies
“Although the Chief Minister was silent, there were innuendos against the Governor by Ministers who spoke at the function. Ministers R. Bindu and K. N. Balagopal spoke without mentioning the office or name. K. N. Balagopal said that for those familiar with universities in States such as Uttar Pradesh, it would be difficult to understand universities in Kerala”.
Against national unity
Mr. Khan quoted several newspaper reports, leading with The Hindu, to make his case against the Minister. He accused Mr. Balagopal of stoking regionalism instead of promoting national unity.
The Minister’s remarks “seek to create a wedge between Kerala and other States of the Indian union and project a false impression that different States of India have different systems of higher education”.
Mr. Khan said Mr. Balagopal’s statements “challenge not only the national unity and integrity but also the constitutional convention that makes it necessary that the Governor of each State shall be from outside the State”.
Violation of oath of office
Mr. Khan wrote somewhat scathingly: “The reported statements of Shri K. N. Balagopal are nothing short of a violation of the oath I had administered to him. A Minister who deliberately violates the oath and undermines the unity and integrity of India cannot continue to enjoy my pleasure. In these circumstances, I am left with no option but to convey that Shri K. N. Balagopal has ceased to enjoy my pleasure. I hope that you (Chief Minister) will consider the matter with the seriousness it deserves and take constitutionally appropriate action”, he said.
Seditious remarks
Mr. Khan said the Education and Law Ministers had indulged in personal attacks against him. “I wish to ignore them as they hurt me personally, But if I do not take cognisance of the seditious remarks of Shri K. N. Balagopal, it would be a grave omission of duty on my part”, he stated.
Is the institution of Governor subverting federal structure? | The Hindu Parley podcast
The government felt Mr. Khan was reading unintended meanings into Mr. Balagopal’s words, and the Minister had not denigrated the Governor’s office as alleged.
Government-Raj Bhavan run-ins
The backdrop of Mr. Khan’s latest run-in with the government was his insistence that the continuance of nine Vice-Chancellors of State universities was untenable as the Supreme Court had deemed the selection process not in accordance with University Grants Commission (UGC) norms.
Mr. Khan argued that the Supreme Court’s cancellation of M. S. Rajasree’s appointment as the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (KTU) Vice-Chancellor applied to other university heads selected through the same process. Hence, their continuation in office had legal effect from inception (void ab initio).
Mr. Khan, who is the Chancellor of universities, unleashed a legal and political battle with the government by counselling Vice-Chancellors to submit their resignation before 11.30 a.m. last Monday. The High Court gave the Vice-Chancellors a temporary reprieve, prompting the Governor to issue the show cause notices. The Raj Bhavan has set November 3 as the deadline for their reply.
Fraught relationship
Mr Khan’s refusal to sign the Kerala University Laws (Amendment) Bill and Kerala Loka Ayukta (Amendment) Bills into law were among the many sore points between Raj Bhavan and the government. Mr. Khan had earned the ire of the Left Democratic Front (LDF) by challenging the unanimous resolutions passed by the Kerala Legislative Assembly against the Citizenship Amendment Act and Centre’s farm laws.
