The refusal of Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi to act on the recommendation of Chief Minister MK Stalin for the reallocation of Minister V Senthil Balaji's portfolios constituted a rare example of the incumbent of the gubernatorial position flagrantly violating the Constitution and constitutional morality. In doing so, he acted contrary to the oath he took as Governor to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Very strangely, he displayed audacity in his response to Stalin that the reason cited for the reallocation of the portfolios was “misleading and incorrect.”
The latest reports suggest that he approved the reallocation of portfolios of Balaji and disapproved of his continuance as a Minister without a portfolio. Apparently, Stalin has not accepted such disapproval by Ravi as that is violative of the prerogative of the Chief Minister to appoint persons of his choice as Ministers and allocate any portfolio or decide not to do so. However, it is pertinent to critically reflect on the initial decision of Ravi not to act on the recommendations of CM Stalin.
On June 15, Higher Education Minister K Ponmudy, while addressing a press conference, informed that Stalin in his letter to Governor Ravi, stated categorically that it is the prerogative of the Chief Minister to allocate portfolios and Ravi's refusal to act as per his recommendation went against the Constitution and the principle of state autonomy. It was reported that the Governor wanted the “correct” reason to be mentioned in the file and not just the health issues of Senthil Balaji for the reallocation of his portfolios to two other Ministers.
Ponmudy informed that earlier, Ravi, in his letter of May 31, 2023, addressed to Chief Minister Stalin, asked him to remove Senthil Balaji from the Council of Ministers, citing his alleged involvement in a scam. He added that Stalin, while responding to Ravi’s letter, informed him that no legal provision or precedent mandated dropping a Minister just because of the allegations they faced. It is to be noted that the letter from the Governor was sent days before the Enforcement Directorate raided and arrested Senthil Balaji. Ponmudy also cited the examples of Union Home Minister Amit Shah and several other Ministers in the Council of Ministers in the Union government, against whom multiple cases are pending and yet, they continue to be part of Prime Minister Modi's cabinet. He, therefore, suggested that Governor Ravi persuade the Bharatiya Janata Party to drop those Ministers.
The bizarre decision of Governor Ravi not to act on the recommendation of Chief Minister Stalin is part of the pattern he has established in acting on his own without any adherence to the Constitution and constitutional niceties. In January this year, while reading out the address to the Assembly as mandated by Article 76 of the Constitution, he went beyond the prepared text drafted by the government and approved by him. He skipped the word "secularism" and other terms such as "Dravidian model of Governance" and omitted the names of illustrious personalities such as Periyar, Ambedkar, K Kamraj and Karunanidhi. When Chief Minister Stalin moved a resolution in the House that the written and printed text of the Governor's address in English and Tamil should form part of the proceedings of the Assembly and not anything else said, Ravi walked out without even waiting for the national anthem.
It is well known that several Bills passed by the state legislature and sent to him for his assent are pending with him. He has neither given his assent nor returned them for reconsideration by the state Assembly. In April this year, Ravi spun an unconstitutional narrative that if a governor withheld assent to a Bill passed by the Assembly, it meant that the "Bill is dead."
Such blatant statements are contrary to the provisions of the Constitution mandating the Governor to act in accordance with the constitutional framework on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The Supreme Court in Nabam Rebia vs Deputy Speaker of Arunachal Assembly clearly stated that there was no discretionary power available to the Governor to act when the Council of Ministers of a state enjoying the confidence of the state Assembly recommended to act as per the Constitution. It cited SR Chaudhuri vs the State of Punjab case, wherein the Supreme Court had referred to the Governor General in Canada, who had limited discretion to act. The quote from that judgement is worth reproducing here.
"When the Prime Minister has been appointed, he selects the other Ministers and advises the Governor General to appoint them. With respect to these appointments, the Governor General reverts to his normal non-discretionary role and is obliged by convention to make the appointments advised by the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister later wishes to make changes in the Ministry, as by moving a Minister from one portfolio to another, or by appointing a new Minister, or by removing a Minister, then the Governor General will take whatever action is advised by the Prime Minister, including if necessary the dismissal of a Minister who has refused his Prime Minister’s request to resign.”
It is well-settled law that the constitutional provisions established by the Supreme Court leave no scope for any Governor to question or ask for reasons to appoint, drop, retain any Minister and reallocate portfolios of one Minister to another when the Chief Minister enjoying the confidence of the state legislature has recommended doing so. So Governor Ravi's decision not to act on the recommendation of Chief Minister Stalin for the reallocation of portfolios of Balaji and retain him as a Minister constituted an egregious violation of the Constitution. He adopted an unconstitutional method for dealing with the Chief Minister's recommendation, who was acting within the limits of the Constitution.
BR Ambedkar, in his last speech in the Constituent Assembly, had presciently said that adopting an unconstitutional method would lead to grammar of anarchy. In fact, the unconstitutional method adopted by Ravi has already spelt out the grammar of anarchy. He has taken an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. He must stem the tide of anarchy caused by his action and set an example by upholding the Constitution and constitutional morality while discharging his duties.
SN Sahu served as Officer on Special Duty to the President of India KR Narayanan.