Dmk Wants Tamil Nadu Governor Gone

26-08-2023

12:20 PM

1 min read

Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader TR Baalu urged all like-minded MPs to support a proposal to remove the Tamil Nadu governor, R N Ravi.
The DMK’s call for removal comes when Governors in several non-BJP-ruled states, including Kerala and Punjab, have expressed disagreements with the government on various issues.

Appointment and removal of Governor

Under Article 155 and 156 of the Constitution, a Governor is appointed by the President and holds office during the pleasure of the President.
If this pleasure is withdrawn before completion of the five-year term, the Governor has to step down.
As the President works on the aid and advice of the Prime Minister and the council of ministers, in effect, the Governor can be appointed and removed by the central government.
While the Governor’s duties and responsibilities lie in a particular state, there is no provision for impeaching the Governor.

Article 163 of the Constitution says the Governor will normally be aided and advised by the Council of Ministers except in those functions which require his discretion.
Hence, Governor is envisaged as an apolitical head who must act on the advice of the council of ministers.
However, governor enjoys certain powers granted under the Constitution, such as:
- giving or withholding assent to a Bill passed by the state legislature,
- assenting to the convening of the state legislative assembly,
- determining the time needed for a party to prove its majority, and
- which party must be called first do so, generally after a hung verdict in an election.

The Maharashtra Governor had sworn in Devendra Fadnavis as the chief minister in 2019 amid a hung verdict, only for his government to fall in 80 hours.
The Punjab Governor, in September 2022, refused to allow a special session of the Assembly for a vote of confidence in the AAP government.

There are no provisions laid down in the Constitution for the manner in which the Governor and the state must engage publicly when there is a difference of opinion.
The management of differences has traditionally been guided by respect for each other’s boundaries.

In Surya Narain Choudhary vs Union of India (1981), the Rajasthan High Court held that the pleasure of the President was not justiciable, the Governor had no security of tenure and can be removed at any time by the President withdrawing pleasure.
In BP Singhal vs Union of India (2010), the Supreme Court elaborated on the pleasure doctrine.
- The Judgement noted that that the President can remove the Governor from office at any time without assigning any reason and without giving any opportunity to show cause.
- However, the power to remove can’t be exercised in an arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner.
- A Governor cannot be removed on the ground that he is out of sync with the policies and ideologies of the Union Government or the party in power at the Centre.
- Nor can he be removed on the ground that the Union Government has lost confidence in him.
- The Bench held that the court will presume that the President had compelling and valid reasons for the removal but if a sacked Governor comes to the court, the Centre will have to justify its decision.

Over the years, several panels and commissions have recommended reforms in how Governors are appointed and how they function. These include:
- Administrative Reforms Commission of 1968,
- Sarkaria Commission of 1988, and
- National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, headed by retired CJI M N Venkachaliah, in 2001.
The Sarkaria Commission had recommended that Governors not to be sacked before completing their five-year tenure, except in rare and compelling circumstances.
Recommendations have also been made for a provision to impeach the Governor by the Assembly.
However, none of these have been implemented.