The tussle between the ruling DMK and the Raj Bhavan hit a new low on Monday as Governor R N Ravi skipped portions of the government-prepared customary address in the Assembly and the Chief Minister piloted a resolution to exclude from the House records whatever he spoke outside the State drafted speech. ‘Dravidian model’ was among the words skipped by the Governor and he also spoke on his own on certain aspects. Ravi began his address, marking the commencement of the year’s first session, amid slogan shouting against him by MLAs belonging to allies of the ruling DMK. The Governor later walked out of the Assembly after M.K. Stalin moved the resolution. This incident has put the spotlight on DMK, the ruling party of Tamil Nadu and their treatment of the office of the Governor. In this context, we will look in to why the actions of DMK constituted continued violation of constitutional principles? And also why this represents a threat to democratic foundation of the nation?
The Incident
The conflict between the Tamil Nadu government and Governor R N Ravi reached a new low Monday when Ravi made changes to the prepared speech he read out in the Assembly. As a result, Chief Minister M K Stalin had to step in and move a resolution demanding only the original printed speech in Tamil be put in records. Governor Ravi reacted to this in an unprecedented manner by staging a walkout from the House in protest. Major aberrations that irked the government and led to CM Stalin’s spontaneous resolution were mainly three points. The governor skipped part of the 12th point of his speech, which was about the state’s “highest priority to maintaining law and order” and taking steps to “ensure that the State continues to be a haven of peace and tranquility, free from any form of violence.” He also skipped the 64th point, which was about how the government dealt with natural disasters and pandemics that happened in the state. The governor’s speech also fully skipped the 65th point and that was the major trigger point for ruling DMK as it was the statements that related to the ‘Dravidian Model of Governance’ which the ruling DMK themselves had declared ‘much acclaimed’ but critics had termed it as propaganda.
Even though the headlines ran as ‘unprecedented’ after the incident, the incident wasn’t actually unprecedented. In Kerala this happened thrice, in 1969, 2001, and 2018 and in Bengal it happened in 1969. In most of the incidents, the Governor undertook this measure to safeguard the sanctity of his post and the principles of the constitution. The Governors mostly disagreed to become mouthpieces of the ruling party and exercised their discretion when a state oversteps to criticize the federal structure of the country.
Unconstitutional Pattern Followed By DMK
The role of the Governor is quite similar to that of the President of India. The Governor performs the same duties as the President, but for the State. The Governor stands as executive head of a State and the working remains the same as of the office of President of India. Under the Constitution of India, the governing machinery is the same as that of the Central Government. The Governor thus has a dual role in our constitutional system, the Governor is the constitutional head of the state, bound by the advice of his council of ministers and functions as a vital link between the Union Government and the State Government. The Governor’s appointment, his powers and everything related to the office of Governor have been discussed under Article 153 to Article 162 of the Indian Constitution.
In the History of Independent India numerous issues has plagued this constitutional post. There are numerous examples of the Governor’s position being abused, usually at the behest of the ruling party at the Centre. Governor’s discretionary powers to invite the leader of the largest party/alliance, post-election, to form the government has often been misused to favour a particular political party. Due to such incidents, negative terms like an agent of the Centre, Puppet and rubber stamps are used to describe a governor of the state. But even though such misuses have been practised before, it has been rectified to a maximum extent by interventions of the Supreme Court and also through recommendations provided by various committees. One such noteworthy instance was the recommendation given by Sarkaria Commission (1988) curtailing arbitrary powers of the Governor. Pursuant to the same the Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai (1994) case underlined the importance of avoiding arbitrary action by the Governor in a partisan manner. And Supreme Court has intervened numerous times recently during political crisis in Goa, Arunachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh setting new precedents limiting powers of the Governor for bipartisan functioning of the government.
But, interestingly even though the court and various commissions have underlined the importance of avoiding unilateral actions taken by the Governor, the area concerning unilateral action by ruling parties of the state to undermine the office of Governor remains hazy. There is limited availability of studies or court interventions in this area. Thus, it remains important to delve into this topic in light of incidents in DMK ruled Tamil Nadu to have a much clearer picture.
The incident in Tamil Nadu does not leave any winners or losers as the one which gets defeated are the principles of democracy. The toxicity of mixing politics even if it goes against constitutional principles are being mostly practiced by opposition ruled states. If we look in to just Tamil Nadu itself we can see it clear. A few months ago, DMK published a column in ‘Murasoli’ (its mouthpiece) reminding all Governors that they should not go “too far” beyond their constitutional limits citing example of Telangana Governor Tamilisai Soundararajan. Daughter of Tamil Nadu herself, she was abused by the party’s mouthpiece stating that the fate of Governors of other states would be the same as that of Soundararajan if they tried to interfere in policies and welfare programs of the respective elected state governments. This scenario was interesting in the sense that it provided a prime example of the opposition parties mistreatment of the Governor, in this incident DMK was rejoicing at the mistreatment of the Governor by TRS even though the Governor was a woman from Tamil Nadu. And in the present incident, a day after the spat between DMK and Governor R N Ravi, “#GetoutRavi” posters, prominently featuring Chief Minister M K Stalin surfaced in some parts of the city. Critics says that this incident accounts to offence under S. 124 of IPC (assault against Governor), in fact, A Ashvathaman, BJP State Secretary, said he has filed the complaint under the section against the culprits. The DMK has been at loggerhead with RN Ravi over many issues, even a bill has been passed by Tamil Nadu government to curtail powers of the Governor. Apart from these Bills, the Tamil Nadu government leaders have boycotted events hosted by the state governor RN Ravi and publicly criticised some of his actions, stirring controversy. In Tamil Nadu MK Stalin boycotted Governors at home reception, an important event to iron out differences and in another incident Tamil Nadu Higher Education Minister K Ponmudy boycotted the convocation event at Madurai Kamaraj University. There are other issues also which are pestering between Governor and the state such as the issue about the term ‘Union government’ or ‘Central Government’ etc. Issues may arise that’s natural but these shouldn’t come in the way of democratic functioning of the state.
Way Ahead
In the ongoing tussle between DMK with the office of Governor, it becomes deplorable to see how the constitutional office is being disrespected. For the smooth functioning of a democratic government, it is important that the governor must act judiciously, impartially and efficiently while exercising his discretion and personal judgement. But it is equally important for the ruling parties of the states to set aside their political leanings while dealing with the constitutional post. The office of Governor must be given its due constitutional respect for the proper functioning of the governance system in this land. But in this current political climate these norms are being flouted in the name of autonomy to the states in contrast to the setup of democracy envisioned under the Constitution of India. The role of governor is indispensable for the successful working of constitutional democracy. Thus, the already laid down constitutional norms must be given its due respect going ahead in order to ensure a free and fair functioning of an independent democracy and DMK must refrain from undertaking unceremonious actions that lower standards of democracy.
Click here to subscribe to The Commune on Telegram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.