By Adv. C K George
T’vm: The difference of opinion between the Kerala Governor Mr Arif Mohammed Khan and the Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan has widened to an unprecedented level following turning down of former’s demand for an in-person briefing from the Chief Secretary and the State Police Chief.
The Governor had asked their clarification about “using proceeds from gold smuggling and hawala racketeering for anti-national activities”.
The new cause for difference of opinion between them was the reported statement of Mr Vijayan in The Hindu appeared September 30. It would be apt to quote the controversial portion of the Hindu report.
“ When our government acts against Muslim extremist elements, these forces try to project that we are acting against Muslims. For example, 150 kg of gold and hawala money worth Rs 123 crore were seized by the State police in the last five years from Malappuram district. This money is entering Kerala for “ant-State” and “anti-national activities”.
Mr Khan had sought a report from the State government about a nexus that appeared in the media quoting Mr Vijayan. The alleged delay on the part of the Government prompted the Governor to issue an ultimatum demanding that top officers brief him in-person at Raj Bhavan on October 08.
The Chief Minister stated in his letter to the Governor that Khan’s missive was the chief Secretary and the State Police Chief brief the Governor directly, which contravened the princples of democratic governance as envisaged in the Constitution.
The Governor held the view that he acted according to the provisions of the Constitution under his discretionary powers.
The Article 163 of the Constitution says : “ There shall be a Council Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head to and advise the Governor in the exercise of his function, except in so far as he is by or under the Constitution required to exercise his function or any other in his discretion.”
In view of the responsibilities of the Governor to the President, and of the fact that the Governor’s decision as to whether he should act in his discretion in any particular matter is final. It would be possible for a Governor to act without ministerial advice in certain other matters, according to the circumstances, even though they are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution as discretionary functions.
The Raj Bhavan sources said that the action of the Governor was quite right and his action was not ultra virus as was alleged by the Chief Minister Mr Vijayan.
The issue is affecting the anti-national activities in the State and hence it fell under the discretionary powers of Governor.
Under Constitution of India, the Governors have discretionary powers. Bu the President of India, has no discretionary powers under Article 174, though the President appointed the Governors.
Under the circumstances, the Governors have every right to demand top officers of the State to brief him directly, without the will and consent of the Chief Minister.
The Raj Bhavan sources said that The Hindu newspaper neither denied the reported statement of the Chief Minister nor gave correction.
Hence it would not be wrong to hold that the Pinarayi Vijayan’s statement appeared in The Hindu was not an extempore one.