Kerala holds the unfortunate distinction of being one of the first states associated with Centre-State relations and the constitutional role of Governors. This reputation stems from Governor Burgula Ramakrishna Rao’s decision in 1959 to dismiss the first democratically elected state government using Article 356 of the Constitution. After almost 63 years, debates continue about the constitutional appropriateness of Governor Rao’s recommendation to dismiss an elected state government. Although opinions are divided, there is consensus that he set a precedent for the abuse of Article 356. Governors across the country seem to enjoy the legacy left by B.R. Rao, despite well-known legal experts discussing the limits of Governors’ functional autonomy. Arif Mohammed Khan, the current Governor of Kerala, is a prime example of this. He believes that a Governor is duty-bound to maintain a disciplinary approach towards the state government, disregarding the constitutional propriety of his position. Since taking office in September 2019, Arif Khan has consistently questioned the state government on contentious political issues. His first clash with the state government occurred when he vocally defended the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) passed by the Union government in December 2019. The state assembly passed a resolution demanding that the act be repealed, to which the Governor objected, claiming it had no legal or constitutional validity. Additionally, at the inaugural session of the Indian History Congress, Arif Khan deviated from his written speech to criticize attendees who expressed displeasure with the CAA and the political situation in the country. This caused an uproar, with some participants protesting and calling for the removal of the police from the venue. The Governor accused one of the protestors, Prof. Irfan Habib, of trying to disrupt his speech. Another major confrontation between the Governor and the state government arose over the nationwide farmers’ agitation against the three farm laws. The state cabinet desired to convene a special one-day session of the assembly to discuss these laws, but the Governor questioned the need for such short notice. Although the state government handled the issue poorly, the Governor capitalized on the situation. However, the conflict was eventually resolved, and a special session was scheduled. The appointment of Vice Chancellors to state universities was another point of contention between the Governor and the state government. In May 2021, Arif Khan expressed his unwillingness to continue as Chancellor of universities in the state without any real power, stating that he did not want to be a part of irregular appointments to avoid conflicts with the government. The issue garnered significant attention until it was eventually resolved by Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan’s intervention. In February of the same year, the Governor refused to sign the customary Governor’s speech until the last moment, demanding action against a government official. The government had to comply with his demand to resolve the situation. The Governor also raised concerns about Cabinet Ministers retaining a large number of personal staff members who become eligible for pensions after serving less than three years. He argued that this practice allowed political parties to keep their cadres satisfied at the expense of taxpayers’ money. These repeated conflicts between the Governor and the state government over the past two and a half years have not contributed positively to Centre-State relations. They are also contrary to the spirit of the Sarkaria Commission’s recommendations. The Commission outlined the Governor’s position in the constitutional scheme with limited discretionary powers, which should be exercised reasonably, in good faith, and with caution. The Commission attributed the rise of conflicts between Governors and state governments to the opposition parties coming to power in many states after 1967. Today, a similar situation exists, with several states being governed by parties other than the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Governors appointed by the Union government in these states are attempting to demonstrate loyalty to their political masters in Delhi, disregarding constitutional propriety and institutional decorum. Therefore, it is crucial to seriously consider the Sarkaria Commission’s suggestion of not appointing a politician from the ruling party at the Centre as a Governor in an opposition-ruled state.
The Perils of Being a ‘Glorified Cipher’ in Kerala
