Can a governor dismiss a minister? TN row revives debate on discretionary powers

New Delhi (TIP)- On Thursday, June 29, evening, Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi announced Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader V. Senthil Balaji’s dismissal from the state council of ministers. The move not only put him on the warpath with the state’s DMK government, but also led to constitutional questions, the chief among them being whether the governor had overstepped his authority.
The governor eventually put his decision in abeyance, telling Chief Minister M.K. Stalin in a letter that he had been advised by Union Home Minister Amit Shah to seek the attorney general’s opinion on the matter.
Around 7:30 pm Thursday, the Tamil Nadu Raj Bhavan had issued a statement saying Balaji’s arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in an alleged cash-for-jobs scam was the reason for his dismissal. The statement said the minister was “facing serious criminal proceedings in a number of cases of corruption, including taking cash for jobs and money laundering”.
Balaji was arrested by the federal investigation agency in the early hours of 14 June, after 18 hours of questioning. The ED accuses Senthil of misusing his office and engineering a job racket scam in the state transport undertakings in 2014-15, when he was transport minister in the then All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) government in the state.
Before his arrest this month, Balaji was minister of electricity, prohibition and excise in the DMK government. Following his arrest, his responsibilities were reassigned, and he remains a ‘minister without portfolio’.
Reacting to the minister’s dismissal order Thursday, Chief Minister M.K. Stalin had said Ravi had “no power” to dismiss his minister. “We will face this legally,” Stalin had said in an official reaction.
Ravi’s decision to suspend Balaji raised several questions on the limits on the powers of the governor — an issue that remains controversial in India and has often ended up in the Supreme Court.
What the Constitution says
Article 164 of the Constitution says that the governor will appoint the chief minister, and that the other ministers will be appointed by him on the advice of the latter. The ministers, it says, will hold office during the “pleasure of the Governor”.
Additionally, Article 163 of the Constitution requires the governor to act on the “aid and advise” of the council of ministers, headed by the chief minister of the state.
But the provision also adds the governor would not need this advice if the Constitution requires him to carry out any function at his discretion.
The Supreme Court usually reads these provisions together to outline the powers of governors — primarily to explain when they need to act on the advice of the council of ministers and when they can use their discretion. Source: The Print