The decision of R.N. Ravi, governor of Tamil Nadu, to dismiss V. Senthil Balaji, a minister in the state government who is without a portfolio currently, is not rooted in India’s constitutional practice and history.
—
ON June 29, 2023, the Tamil Nadu governor R.N. Ravi took a preposterous decision: Without seeking the advice of Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, he dismissed a minister in the state government.
The minister dismissed is V. Senthil Balaji, who is without a portfolio at the moment but was minister of electricity, prohibition and excise until June 14. He has been arrested and is in judicial custody as proceedings related to an Enforcement Directorate investigation against him are underway.
Reasoning given for dismissal
Governor Ravi, inter alia, invoked Article 164(1) of the Constitution to justify his decision and the reasons he gave for dismissing Senthil was that the minister faced corruption charges as also criminal proceedings under the stringent provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Remarking that Senthil’s removal from the council of ministers was critical to prevent him from adversely influencing the ongoing investigation against him, the governor flagged the point that if Senthil was not dismissed, it would lead to the breakdown of constitutional order in the state.
The governor remarked that Senthil’s removal from the council of ministers was critical to prevent him from adversely influencing the ongoing investigation against him.
However, when the governor faced widespread criticism for his actions, he curiously withheld the dismissal Order on the ground that legal opinion on the matter was being sought from the Attorney General of India, advice he reportedly received from the Union home minister Amit Shah.
Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu M.K. Stalin was shocked to find that the governor had dismissed Senthil without seeking a legal opinion first.
Through such hasty action— dismissing a minister first and then deciding to keep the decision in abeyance pending legal opinion— the governor only managed to make a caricature of himself.
The whole country was outraged by the perverse decision of the governor who made a vain attempt to justify it by citing the text of Article 164(1).
The text is worth reproducing here: “The chief minister shall be appointed by the governor and the other ministers shall be appointed by the governor on the advice of the chief minister, and the ministers shall hold office during the pleasure of the governor.”
Ravi might dismiss Chief Minister Stalin as well
The manner in which Ravi conducted himself by removing Senthil from the council of ministers unmistakably creates the impression that he wants to be in the good books of the Modi regime and continue in the exalted office, not as per the oath he took to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” but during the ‘pleasure’ of the Prime Minister and Union home minister.
In other words, the governor wanted to endear himself to the Modi government by such unprecedented action against the minister.
The whole country was outraged by the perverse decision of the governor who made a vain attempt to justify it by citing the text of Article 164(1).
If he could take such a drastic step by citing patently unconstitutional reasons, then the day is not far when he will follow the same logic to dismiss Chief Minister Stalin and his government and unilaterally dissolve the state assembly.
Constituent Assembly and pleasure of the governor
A plain reading of Article 164(1) does make it seem like ministers hold office during the pleasure of the governor.
The Article (or rather, the corresponding Article 144 of the draft Constitution) was discussed in the Constituent Assembly on June 1, 1949.
A distinguished member Mohammad Ismail Khan moved an amendment to the effect that in place of the word “pleasure” the words “so long as they enjoy the confidence of the legislative assembly of the state” be substituted.
Continuing further he said that when the decision was taken to make the governor a nominee of the President in the constitutional scheme of governance, the Constitution should have clearly stated that the council of ministers should hold office not during the pleasure of the governor but so long as it enjoyed the confidence of the legislative assembly.
Also read: The conundrum of constitutional morality: Delhi’s Chief Minister versus Lieutenant Governor
He claimed that such a clear constitutionally enshrined statement would be hailed as “a very democratic and acceptable procedure” about which “there need be no hesitation”.
Possibly such a clear cut and unambiguous expression as suggested by Ismail Khan would have prevented actions like the dismissal of Senthil by the governor.
Mohammad Tahir, another member of the Constituent Assembly, also moved an amendment on June 1, 1949 to the effect that ministers should hold office during the pleasure of the governor “and till such time as the council of ministers maintains the confidence of the members of the legislative assembly”.
A distinguished member Mohammad Ismail Khan moved an amendment to the effect that in place of the word “pleasure” the words “so long as they enjoy the confidence of the legislative assembly of the state” be substituted.
Tahir apprehended that there could be some sort of a tug of war between the pleasure of the governor and the confidence of the legislature enjoyed by ministers.
He added, “It may happen that the members of the legislative assembly may not have confidence in the minister, but at the same time, through long association with the governor, the ministers may enjoy the pleasure of the governor quite all right.”
He went to the extent of saying that “the hand of the governor should be made stronger so that if he finds that over and above the question of his pleasure the ministers have not got the confidence of the assembly, the ministry should be dissolved.”
The sum and substance of what the two aforementioned amendments suggested was that if the ministers enjoyed the confidence of the legislatures then the governor would in no way disregard it by invoking the doctrine of pleasure.
H.V. Patskar, another distinguished member of the Constituent Assembly, said that the better form would have been merely to mention that “the council of ministers would be appointed by the governor” and described the provision, “they shall hold office during his pleasure” as undesirable.
He held that to be derogatory to the position assigned to the council of ministers and characterised it as remnant of the old idea that the ministers hold office during the king’s pleasure.
Asking a question, “What would happen if the ministers had to be changed?” he asserted, “The ministers should be changed only if they cease to command the confidence of the majority of the members in the House.”
It is clear from the aforementioned discussions that the members of the Constituent Assembly flagged the point that the governor possessed no power to change a minister on his own if the minister, as part of the council of ministers, enjoyed the confidence of the House.
Ambedkar’s stand in the Constituent Assembly
Dr B.R. Ambedkar, while replying to the debate, echoed the same point when he said, “I have no doubt about it that it is the intention of this Constitution that the ministry shall hold office during such time as it holds the confidence of the majority.”
Also read: Governor is but a shorthand expression for the state government: Supreme Court
He forcefully affirmed, “It is on that principle that the Constitution will work.” “The reason why we have not so expressly stated it,” he explained, “is because it has not been stated in that fashion or in those terms in any of the Constitutions which lay down a parliamentary system of government.”
He clarified the meaning of the phrase “during pleasure” and asserted that it “is always understood to mean that the ‘pleasure’ shall not continue notwithstanding the fact that the ministry has lost the confidence of the majority.”
Ambedkar clarified that: “The moment a ministry has lost the confidence of the majority, the President would exercise his ‘pleasure’ in dismissing the ministry.”
Dr B.R. Ambedkar said, “I have no doubt about it that it is the intention of this Constitution that the ministry shall hold office during such time as it holds the confidence of the majority.”
It is unequivocally clear that neither the governor of any state nor the President of India can dismiss a minister by invoking the pleasure doctrine when that minister, as part of a council of ministers, enjoys the confidence of the legislature.
Tamil Nadu governor must take corrective steps
Ambedkar’s statement that the Constitution would work on the principle that a ministry shall hold office during such time as it holds the confidence of the majority of the assembly should guide governors.
By employing this foundational logic, one notes that the Tamil Nadu governor flagrantly violated the Constitution by dismissing V. Senthil Balaji on his own and without the aid and advice of Chief Minister Stalin.
Many such instances of violation of the Constitution clearly prove that the Tamil Nadu governor has been habitually acting against it.
He must take corrective measures to discharge his duties within the framework of the Constitution.
Any other method contrary to it would have serious consequences for the unity and integrity of our country.
