Did the governor commit a big mistake by sacking the minister accused of corruption without the consent of the CM?

<पी शैली="पाठ-संरेखण: औचित्य सिद्ध करें;">The case of Tamil Nadu is that a minister Senthil is tainted by corruption charges. He gets jailed and his bail is also rejected. After this, Chief Minister Stalin takes back the department from him, but also says that he will continue to be a minister without the department. Now, here the question technically arises whether he has moral ground to continue as a minister? Can’t he influence the evidence on the basis of his clout and reach…and, perhaps for this reason he has not been given bail. Now in such a case whether he should be a minister or not, the whole controversy is only on this.

Similar to Satyendar Jain’s case

In Delhi, even after months of going to jail, Satyendar Jain was kept as a minister by Kejriwal. So, even though it was a similar case, it was worse. Jail Minister Satyendar Jain himself had gone to jail, yet his resignation was not being taken. Now the Governor of Tamil Nadu has come to the center of this whole matter because the Governor has a clear constitutional responsibility that he will appoint the Chief Minister and he has the right to appoint or dismiss the ministers, but he will work only on the advice of the Chief Minister. The Governor is the representative of the President and his work is limited that he will work only on the advice of the Chief Minister. That is why, questions are being raised on the Governor in this matter.

Article 164 and the powers of the Governor

The things that are being said about the Governor of Tamil Nadu that he has crossed the limits of the post or has made some mistake. Article 164 is very clear about this. According to it, the Governor will appoint the Chief Minister and after that the rest of the ministers will also be appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister, but he will do so only on the advice of the Chief Minister. The ministers will remain on their posts as long as the Chief Minister wants. To understand the role of the Governor, we should look at the rest of the Supreme Court cases, one of which is the case of Karunanidhi, the father of the present Chief Minister Stalin.

The case of Karunanidhi vs Union of India

This case was of M Karunanidhi vs Union of India. The decision on this came on 20 February 1979. It was said in it that the authority which appoints, then the same authority also has the power to dismiss. That is, if the governor appoints the cabinet, then he also has the right to dismiss those people who have been appointed by him, this can be explained on the basis of this decision. The doubt or problem has happened in Tamil Nadu just because they took this decision without consulting the Chief Minister. For this reason, his decision was also criticized and had to be withdrawn.

Powers of the Governor and the Supreme Court

The question arises whether the Governor has the right to do this, then the answer is that he does not have such a right. The Constitution is very clear in this matter and 164A says that the Governor will do what the Chief Minister recommends. In fact, recently, in one of its decisions, the Supreme Court, in the case named Subhash Desai vs. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, clearly stated that the Governor does not have the right to enter the political arena or Resolve inter-party matters. As soon as it is said that he cannot enter the political arena, it means that even if there is a matter in which there is moral pressure on the Chief Minister, the Governor cannot do this work, nor can he force the Chief Minister. This is purely the prerogative of the Chief Minister.

Rajiv Gandhi Vs Zail Singh

We must remember that the tension between the former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and the then President Giani Zail Singh had increased a lot. A book has come recently, it is mentioned in it that he wanted to remove Rajiv Gandhi. Could not remove Just as the powers of the President are limited, in the same way the Governor is also limited, unless there is an absolutely extraordinary and historical situation, he cannot run his will in any elected government, otherwise a constitutional crisis will arise.

Morality apart, constitutional strength with CM

Now this is the way forward and morality also says that when he went to jail on the first day, Stalin should have taken the resignation of Minister Senthil. We also saw one such example in the case of LK Advani, when he was accused of involvement in the hawala scam and immediately resigned. After that, he went back to the Lok Sabha only after being acquitted. So, morally the Chief Minister should be removed, especially when he is trying to fight the 2024 elections unitedly, be it RJD’s Lalu Prasad, Aam Aadmi Party leader or Stalin The tainted of the party, there will be no political gain by staying with them. It is correct that the Governor does not have this right. In the case of Maharashtra, we saw that when Shinde was sworn in as the Chief Minister, the Supreme Court may not have overturned that decision, but it definitely said that the decision was not very fair. It was good that the Governor of Tamil Nadu took back his decision, otherwise he would have to get reprimanded by the court.

[नोट- उपरोक्त दिए गए विचार लेखक के व्यक्तिगत विचार हैं. ये जरूरी नहीं कि एबीपी न्यूज़ ग्रुप इससे सहमत हो. इस लेख से जुड़े सभी दावे या आपत्ति के लिए सिर्फ लेखक ही जिम्मेदार है.]