The Governor wrote to the Chief Minister on October 25 saying “Balagopal has ceased to enjoy my pleasure”, and asking him to “consider the matter with the seriousness it deserves and take such action as is constitutionally appropriate” .

What does the Governor mean by saying that the Minister has ceased to enjoy his pleasure?

Although Arif Mohammed Khan did not put it in so many words, he seems to be asking the chief minister to fire the finance minister.

This is what he had appeared to threaten to do himself earlier, when his official Twitter account had published on October 17: “The CM and the Council of Ministers have every right to advise the Governor. But statements by individual ministers that lower the dignity of the governorship can invite actions, including the withdrawal of pleasure.

The central leadership of the CPI-M, which heads the Left Democratic Front (LDF) government, reacted strongly, saying the constitution did not give the governor “dictatorial powers”, and that Khan’s “political bias” against the government had been “exposed”.

Later, Vijayan himself told a press conference that the governor’s powers were “very limited”. “If someone declares that he would act contrary to the Constitution and the existing legal system, and he goes in that direction, it cannot be declared valid,” the chief minister had said.

But doesn’t the Constitution say that ministers will remain in office at the pleasure of the governor?

Yes, section 164(1) says that “ministers hold office at the pleasure of the governor”. This is the provision that the Governor of Kerala apparently alluded to.

However, barring a further reinterpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court, this provision does not mean that the governor has the power to dismiss a minister. So far, there has been no occasion in the history of the republic of a governor unilaterally removing a minister from government.

former general secretary of lok sabha PDT Achary had explained to The Indian Express earlier that the provision mentioning “the pleasure of the Governor” did not mean that the Governor had the right to remove the Chief Minister(s) at will.

“The Governor can have his pleasure as long as the government enjoys a majority in the House. The governor can withdraw his approval only when the government loses the majority but refuses to resign. Then he withdraws the pleasure and rejects it,” Achary had said.

Furthermore, he said, “Without the advice of the chief minister, a governor cannot appoint or dismiss a minister. This is the constitutional position.

So what can the Governor do if he is aggrieved by the conduct of a Minister?

Achary said that if indeed a minister lowers the dignity of the governor or his office, as Khan has alleged, Raj Bhavan can ask the chief minister to investigate the minister’s conduct. “If the minister is found to have defamed or disrespected the governor, he can ask the chief minister to fire the minister,” Achary said.

Although this is what Khan did, the chief minister is under no obligation to obey him. And he’s already denied the Governor’s request. Vijayan replied to Khan saying “my confidence in KN Balagopal, member of the Kerala State Council of Ministers, responsible for the finance portfolio, remains intact. I hope the Governor will understand that no further action should be taken. taken in the matter.

Achary said: “Section 164(1) deals with the appointment of the chief minister and other ministers. Although the governor does not have to seek the advice of anyone when appointing the chief minister, he can only appoint a minister on the recommendation of the chief minister. The Governor does not have the power to choose anyone to make a Minister. He can only appoint a minister on the advice of the Prime Minister.

What did the Supreme Court say about the powers of the Governor vis-à-vis the elected government?

In “Shamsher Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab” (1974), a Constitution bench of seven Supreme Court justices said: “We declare that the law of this branch of our Constitution is that the President and the Governor , custodians of all executive and other powers under various sections, shall under these provisions exercise their formal constitutional powers only upon and in accordance with the advice of their Ministers, save in a few well-known exceptional circumstances .

These situations could arise if the Prime Minister or Chief Minister ceases to hold a majority in the House, if the government loses a majority but refuses to leave office, and for “the dissolution of the House when a call to the country is necessary”.

But even in the third case, the head of state (president or governor) “should avoid getting involved in politics and should be advised by his prime minister (chief minister) who will eventually take responsibility for approach,” the court ruled.

In “Nabam Rebia And Etc. vs Deputy Speaker And Ors” (2016), the Supreme Court quoted the observations of BR Ambedkar: “The Governor under the Constitution has no function which he can perform by himself; no functions at all. Although he has no function, he does have certain duties to perform, and I think the House will do well to bear this distinction in mind.