THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: After a lull, the government-governor conflict is back in the limelight. A day after Governor Arif Mohammed Khan summoned the chief secretary and the state police chief over the chief minister’s controversial interview, the government instructed its top officials to ignore the fiat.
Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan shot off a letter to the governor, bluntly telling him that he didn’t have the Constitutional right to issue such direct orders to the two top civil servants. The Raj Bhavan is Constitutionally obliged to route any such communication through the CM, Pinarayi said in the letter.
The governor was quick to respond to the letter, saying he opted for a briefing from the chief secretary and the state police chief as the CM did not respond to his letter seeking clarification on Pinarayi’s remark on the “alleged anti-national and anti-state activities going on in the past three years”. The briefing was intended to furnish a report to the President, Khan said.
The governor summoned Chief Secretary Sarada Muraleedharan and State Police Chief Shaik Darvesh Saheb over the CM’s controversial interview that appeared in an English daily. In the interview, Pinarayi is quoted as saying that money from hawala and gold smuggling was used for anti-state and anti-national activities. Pinarayi has since disowned the statement, and the daily too admitted that it had wrongly quoted him.
The CM is yet to respond to the governor’s letter. “I appreciate that you acknowledged in the letter that as per Article 167 of the Constitution of India, the chief minister is duty bound to provide information required by the governor. However, it is surprising to note that you chose to avoid my request to have a briefing from the chief secretary, that too, in the absence of a response from you to my letters,” Khan said.
Guv: Silence, inaction on info request intriguing
In his letter, Pinarayi said the constitutional course of action would be to route any such directions to the officials through the CM. Article 167 states the duties of the CM to provide information to the governor on certain matters and what can be required by the governor, he said. “Rule 34(2) of the Rules of Business of the Government of Kerala, promulgated by the hon’ble governor under Article 166(3), contains details of matters to be communicated to the governor.
Beyond these, there is no other power in the Constitution, which vests any further power with the office of the governor, with regard to the relationship with the Council of Ministers,” he said. The CM requested the governor to reconsider his request.
In his reply, Khan said his action was well within the spheres of the Rules...and Articles 166(3) and 167 of the Constitution. On the request to reconsider, Khan said: “Let me convey there is no decision left with me to reconsider as you have instructed the chief secretary not to act on my letter, which was on a matter of grave concern and not one pertaining to routine administrative matters.”
He said the silence, inaction and inordinate delay on the request for information was intriguing and created an impression that the CM has something to hide.” A government shying away from its Constitutional duty of providing information to the governor stands the risk of being viewed as acting against Constitutional provisions and Constitutional morality,” he said.
