Can a governor dismiss state ministers in a dispute over discretionary powers?
Even though the dismissal of a state minister by Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi was put on hold after a few hours, it unsurprisingly sparked a lot of media debate. This occurrence once again highlighted the problem of the governor’s authority in comparison to the elected government. The most important issue that emerges in this situation is whether the governor has the authority to fire a minister without the Chief Minister’s approval.
Article 164 of the Constitution is the pertinent section that sheds light on this issue. According to the statement, the governor shall choose the Chief Minister, and he shall appoint the other ministers on the Chief Minister’s recommendation. This Article makes it clear that the governor may only designate additional ministers with the Chief Minister’s recommendation. In addition, Article 164 states that ministers serve at the governor’s pleasure, which implies that a minister cannot continue in office if the governor no longer gives him or her his or her pleasure.
The matter at hand is what precisely the governor’s pleasure entails and if he or she has the discretion to do so. According to the constitution, the governor may only carry out his duties with the council of ministers’ approval. Of course, he has been given certain discretionary duties that he may carry out without the chief minister’s input. However, ministerial appointments and removals do not fall within the scope of discretionary responsibilities. The governor of Nagaland, Manipur, Sikkim, and Arunachal Pradesh has certain particular duties related to administration under the Constitution (Articles 371A, 371C, 371E, 371H, etc.).
Similar to this, the governor reports the malfunction of the constitutional machinery to the president under Article 356 in the course of his discretionary authority. According to the constitution, he is free to carry out his duties on his own initiative without the assistance or counsel of the council of ministers. He may only make decisions about the remaining issues with the assistance and counsel of the council of ministers. It is evident that the governor may only revoke his pleasure with the Chief Minister’s assistance and counsel. The phrase “Ministers shall hold office during the pleasure of the governor” means nothing else.
In a number of prior instances, the Supreme Court has considered the role of the governor of a state. According to Shamsher Singh v. the State of Punjab (1974), the governor is the constitutional head and lacks any independent administrative authority. Only with the support and counsel of the council of ministers can he take action. The Shamsher Singh legislation was upheld by the Nabam Rebia case in 2016.
The governors were the actual in charge under colonial administration, and they had the power to appoint and remove ministers as they saw fit. The Government of India Act 1935 provides this under Sections 51(1) and (5). These clauses were not included in the constitution of Free India. However, some members of the Constituent Assembly want to give free India’s governors the same authority as the colonial governors on the flimsy pretext that politicians lack enough education and cannot manage the government efficiently. Dr. BR Ambedkar categorically refuted this claim, stating that the governor is not granted any executive authority under the constitution and must always operate with the assistance and counsel of the council of ministers.
The governors of modern India cannot be assumed to be unaware of their constitutional status. They could experience various stresses. When the Constituent Assembly approved the Constitution in 1949, the political climate was very, very different. The authors of the constitution believed it was safer to utilize the jargon found in the 1935 Government of India Act. The phrases and words employed in that conduct have developed permanent and established meanings. This explains why the constitution uses words like “pleasure” and language like “the executive power of the state shall be vested in the governor.”
The truth is that only an elected government may use the state’s executive authority. But the Government of India Act of 1935 served as the only inspiration for the language used above. Perhaps it is time to reexamine many of these idioms and switch to words and expressions that don’t need explanation to the general public.
