The Hindu Editorial Vocabulary– Oct 19, 2022; Day 370

Whose pleasure? On Kerala Governor’s remarks

The Constitution has no provision for a Governor to sack Ministers

Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan’s indirect threat that he can independently dismiss Ministers is neither in keeping with the dignity of his office nor in line with (in alignment or accordance with) the Constitution. His claim that “statements of individual ministers that lower the dignity of the Governor’s office can invite action including withdrawal of pleasure” has no basis in the constitutional system. Article 164 of the Constitution, which says the Chief Minister shall be appointed by the Governor and other Ministers shall be appointed by the Governor on the Chief Minister’s advice, adds that “the Ministers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor”. There have been instances of Governors dismissing Chief Ministers, but those were related to constitutional situations in which the legislative majority of the incumbent (Currently holding an office) ministry was in doubt. It is also now judicially determined that the question of majority can be answered only on the floor of the legislature through a confidence vote. Nothing in the Article means that the Governor may independently dismiss a Minister. The pleasure doctrine (A belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school) exists only in a constitutional sense, and is exercised by the Governor only on the advice of the Chief Minister. In other words, the term ‘pleasure of the Governor’ is used as a euphemism (An inoffensive or indirect expression that is substituted for one that is considered offensive or too harsh) to refer to the Chief Minister’s power to drop a Minister from the Council of Ministers.

The context for this particular confrontation (A hostile disagreement face-to-face) appears to be the Governor’s reluctance to grant assent (Agreement with a statement or proposal to do something) to the Kerala University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2022. Higher Education Minister R. Bindu’s remark that the Governor should return the Bill for reconsideration instead of withholding his approval indefinitely was a possible trigger for his comment. While Governors may differ with the contents of a Bill and may exercise the available constitutional options, they should not use their powers to stall legislation unpalatable (Not pleasant or acceptable to the taste or mind) to them. In the realm (A knowledge domain that you are interested in or are communicating about) of university laws, Governors, being Chancellors of most universities, the scope for friction (A state of conflict between persons) is quite high. It should be remembered that the office of Chancellor is created by the statute that establishes a university, and the legislature is equally competent to curtail (Place restrictions on) the Chancellor’s powers or even abolish the system of having the Governor as Chancellor. Even the M.M. Punchhi Commission, which reviewed Centre-State relations, recommended that Governors should not be burdened with the role of Chancellors. It is time to implement this principle. Governors seem to have an exaggerated (Represented as greater than is true or reasonable) notion of their own roles under the Constitution. They are expected to defend the Constitution and may use their powers to caution elected regimes against violating the Constitution, but this does not mean that they can use the absence of a time-frame for decision-making and the discretionary (Having or using the ability to act or decide according to your own discretion or judgment) space given to them to function as a parallel power centre.

Want to improve your vocabulary further? Download the Lists of Word-Meanings of Previous Months here.