KOCHI: The constitution allows the governor to “withdraw pleasure” against ministers. However, he has no power to dismiss them, say legal experts. They also said Governor Arif Mohammed Khan’s citing of Finance Minister K N Balagopal’s ‘Uttar Pradesh’ remarks was not sufficient ground for recommending the latter’s removal to the chief minister.
Former Supreme Court Judge Justice K T Thomas said, “The sedition charges raised by the governor are his opinion alone. A final decision has to be taken by the CM.”
“The doctrine of pleasure being discussed here is the one in the constitution. For a governor to remove a minister, the CM has to recommend it. Only if this happens can it be considered as the governor’s pleasure. Else, it will be just a thing that the governor thought of by himself,” Justice Thomas said.
It does not have any bearing and the governor cannot get a minister dismissed, he said. “However, it may have standing if a person files a quo warranto writ with the High Court challenging the person’s right to hold the office. The entire scenario then hinges on the HC judgment. Still, it doesn’t mean the minister has to quit. While taking up a quo-warranto writ, the court will ask the minister to explain under what authority they are continuing in the post. It will ask the governor to present his side too,” he said. Once that happens, the issue will take another twist, he added.
‘Barring rare cases, guv bound to act on advice of ministers’
T Asaf Ali, former Director General of Prosecutions said the pleasure of the governor contemplated by clause (1) of Article 164, does not confer upon him arbitrary or discretionary power to dismiss ministers.
“The governor in appointing the CM and ministers, in the exercise of his powers under Article 164 (1), cannot act as per his discretion and is bound to act in accordance with the advice of the CM. Under Article 164 (1), he has no power to dismiss a CM or council of ministers, while acting as per his discretion.
It should not be interpreted as giving the governor the power to act as per his whims and fancies while exercising his discretionary powers. Also, the governor is bound to act on the advice of the council of ministers with rare exceptions. For example, he/she need not accept the advice of the council of ministers while according sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act for prosecuting a corrupt minister,” Asaf Ali said.
Reena Abraham, a lawyer with the Kerala High Court, pointed out the Supreme Court’s observations in the ‘Shivraj Singh Chouhan vs Speaker Madhya Pradesh’ in 2020. The top court had said the governor is expected to discharge the role of a constitutional statesman. The governor’s authority is not one to be exercised in aid of a political dispensation that considers an elected government of the day to be a political opponent. It had said that the precise reason underlying the entrustment of the authority to the governor is the ability to stand above political conflicts and, with the experience of statesmanship, to wheel the authority in a manner that does not detract from the strength and resilience of democratically elected legislatures and the governments in the states who are accountable to them.
To act contrary to this mandate would result in the realisation of the worst fears of constitutional framers who were cognisant that the governor’s office could potentially derail democratically-elected governments but nonetheless placed trust in future generations to ensure that the government of the people, by the people and for the people will not be denuded by those designed to act as its sentinels, the SC had said.Reena said the present controversy regarding “withdrawal of pleasure” is to be interpreted in the light of pleasure doctrine under Article 164.
PREVIOUS INSTANCE
In 2016, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court had refused to interfere with a writ petition that had sought to remove Azam Khan when he was a minister in the Uttar Pradesh cabinet, on the ground that then Governor Ram Naik had expressed displeasure over his alleged conduct.