TN Governor Is Liable To Be Recalled Due To His Unconstitutional Actions

There are enough and more reasons for the President of India who appointed RN Ravi as the Governor of Tamil Nadu to recall him as he has repeatedly defied his constitutional oath of office and acted as a law unto himself. He had been doing so in the past but he has now crossed all limits after he unilaterally dismissed Senthil Balaji from the Council of Ministers without the advice of the Chief Minister and the Council of the Ministers. He put the decision on hold after being advised to do so by the Union Home Ministry. It is an unpardonable folly that Governor RN Ravi has committed.

Article 153 of the Constitution states that there shall be a Governor for each State and under Article 155, the President appoints the Governor. Article 163 of the Constitution states that there shall be a Council of Ministers to aid and advice the Governor.  

There are clear provisions in the Constitution and decisions of the Supreme Court to indicate that a Governor has to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. In B.P. Singhal vs Union of India (2010) 6 SCC 331, the Supreme Court made clear the above position. "Under the Cabinet system of Government as embodied in our Constitution the Governor is the constitutional or formal head of the State and he exercises all his powers and functions conferred on him by or under the Constitution on the aid and advice of his Council of Ministers save in spheres where the Governor is required by or under the Constitution to exercise his functions in his discretion", held  seven-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Shamsher Singh vs State of Punjab. There is no discretionary power given by the Constitution to the Governor to dismiss a Minister.  Under Article 164 of the Constitution, the Governor appoints the individual Ministers only on the advice of the Chief Minister. This means that the Governor has no individual discretion to appoint a Minister.  Consequently, the Governor has no discretion to dismiss a Minister too. Therefore, to unilaterally exercise the power to dismiss a Minister, without any advice to that effect from the Chief Minister, is a defiance of the Constitutional provisions and a direct assault on the concept of representative democracy.

In this context, Article 158 assumes significance as a Governor is expected to not be a member of either the Parliament or a State Assembly.  He is not a part of the cabinet system of governance. Under Article 164(2), it is the Council of Ministers which is collectively responsible to the State Legislature.

Therefore, on a holistic reading of the provisions of the Constitution and the judgments of the Supreme Court, the Governor is only a titular head and he can only advise the Council of Ministers but he has to adhere by their advice. He is just an umpire and not a player. In the recent Shiv Sena rift case, the Supreme Court stated that the Governor cannot enter the political arena and can discharge only those functions which are specified in the Constitution.  "The Governor is a constitutional functionary who derives his authority from the Constitution. This being the case, the Governor must be cognizant of the constitutional bounds of the power vested in him. He cannot exercise a power that is not conferred on him by the Constitution or a law made under it", the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court stated.

In another recent case, the Supreme Court reprimanded the Punjab Governor for refusing to summon the budget session of the Assembly as per the advise given by the Council of Ministers.

The actions of Governor RN Ravi are not in conformity with the Constitution and rule of law.

Another significant provision is Article 200 where the Governor has limited discretion to return a bill when a State Legislature passes it. The Governor can return the bill to the Legislature to consider certain aspects in order to clear the bill. If the Legislature considers those objections and passes the Bill again, the Governor has to sign the bill at the earliest. Recently, the Supreme Court, in the case related to Telangana Governor, stated that Governors cannot sit over bills and should return them as soon as possible under Article 200.

"The first proviso to Article 200 states that the Governor may “as soon as possible after the presentation” of the Bill for assent, return the Bill if it is not a Money Bill together with a message for reconsideration to the House or Houses of the State Legislature. The expression “as soon as possible” has significant constitutional content and must be borne in mind by constitutional authorities", the Supreme Court stated.

In this connection, it is only too notorious a fact that the present Governor of Tamil Nadu has delayed the signing of several bills in matters like NEET and online gambling among others, which runs counter to Article 200. The Governor also created an embarrassment by omitting to read out certain portions from the approved text for the address to the Assembly as per Article 176. He had to walk out from the Assembly when it passed a resolution to take on record only the written text of the approved speech and not the portions read out by the Governor.

That apart, the Governor has on record gone against secularism, which is one of the basic features of the Constitution, by saying that the word "secular" was inserted in the Preamble "for political reasons and vested interests".

By these fundamental mistakes, he has reduced the dignity of the high Constitutional office. Therefore, the only way out is to recall TN Governor RN Ravi so that the parallel government is put an end to and the state of Tamil Nadu has a federal democracy which is governed by elected representatives.

The authors are advocates practising at the Madras High Court. The views expressed are personal to the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinion of LiveLaw.