Ravi and other hitmen in high office

Tamil Nadu governor R.N. Ravi is at the centre of an interesting case being argued in the Supreme Court on the role and powers of state governors. It’s a case that goes to the very heart of Indian federalism: Ravi has been at loggerheads with the state government from the day he was appointed (in 2021), and the state has accused him of ‘overreach’. There have been repeated complaints against him from chief minister M.K. Stalin and his cabinet colleagues, and the state has now petitioned the Supreme Court asking for his recall.

In terse exchanges with attorney general of India R. Venkataramani, Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan took exception to Ravi’s sitting on bills passed by the legislature, neither assenting nor returning them for reconsideration after long delays. The state has argued that by indefinitely withholding assent, the governor was holding the state to ransom. Invoking Article 200, which details how governors may deal with legislation, the judges derisively remarked that the governor seemed to have “devised his own procedure.”

Ravi has walked out of assembly sessions over the playing of the ‘Tamizh Thai Vazhthu (Invocation to Mother Tamil)’, defied the top court’s pronouncements, and, for a constitutional head of state, been rather overly political and obstructionist. On 21 March 2024, the then Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud even noted that Ravi was “defying the Supreme Court” and asked the Centre, “If the governor does not follow the Constitution, what will the (state) government do?”

This, while hearing the state’s petition on Ravi’s refusal to swear in DMK minister K. Ponmudi, who had been convicted but later acquitted in a corruption case. Ravi argued it was against constitutional morality but had to give in after the SC issued a stern warning.

This sort of litigation was not always the case. For many years after Independence, governors were a respected, if largely decorative, part of constitutional furniture. The Raj Bhavan was often treated as a sinecure by governments to reward people for services rendered to the party or to the nation, and well understood by everyone in the system. Incumbents performed their constitutional function largely without controversy, seldom having to rely upon their considerable powers of discretion granted by the Constitution.

Article 163, which mandates that the governor acts on the advice of the cabinet, worked without any hindrance. The advent of the BJP government in New Delhi in 2014 changed things dramatically. In line with its ‘win at any cost’ approach to politics, it appointed a series of governors whose only job was to make the life of opposition state governments as difficult as possible: Jagdeep Dhankhar (followed by C.V. Ananda Bose) in Mamata Banerjee-ruled West Bengal, Arif Mohammed Khan in Kerala and R.N. Ravi in Tamil Nadu, to name only a few. These gentlemen quickly altered the dreary, humdrum role of the governor as they went after opposition-ruled governments with all the powers at their disposal.

In a hard-hitting description of the phenomenon, former Congress minister and ex-governor Margaret Alva wrote: ‘…the BJP government has reduced governors to constitutional hitmen.’ It appears that the framers of the Constitution did not anticipate a situation where the governors would turn renegade, defying the role of an impartial arbiter envisaged for them in Article 163. Despite the immunity of their office and the powers they have, the governor’s role is circumscribed— discretionary powers granted under Article 163 are an exception, to be used only in the rarest of cases, such as the breakdown of the state machinery; governors cannot assume powers reserved for chief ministers.

This has been underlined by both the Supreme Court and independent commissions, including the Administrative Reforms Commission of 1968 and Sarkaria Commission of 1988. I n the last decade, governors have played a very dubious role—they have interfered in the selection of chief ministers—in Goa, Bihar and Manipur (2017), Karnataka (2018) and Maharashtra (2019); they have decided the date and time for proving legislative majorities to favour certain parties, as in Arunachal Pradesh and Maharashtra; and meddled in educational matters in their role as Chancellors of state universities.

Several state governments have had dayto-day difficulties with their governors. The list is long: West Bengal, Kerala, Rajasthan, Telangana, Karnataka and Delhi. In his five years as Kerala governor (till December 2024), Arif Mohammed Khan was always on a collision course with the CPI(M) government of Pinarayi Vijayan. CPI(M) state secretary M.V. Govindan accused Khan of stalling progressive legislation by withholding assent and referring them to the President. Such was the animosity towards him that the chief minister and his cabinet did not even bother with a ceremonial sendoff when he was shifted to Bihar. Take West Bengal: on 30 July 2019, Jagdeep Dhankhar, a relatively unknown former MLA from Rajasthan, was appointed governor.

West Bengal has been ruled by opposition parties for the last five decades: first by the CPI(M), and then Mamata Banerjee’s Trinamool Congress.

Equations have sometimes been tricky; but Dhankhar’s arrival was a whole new ball game. Before he was elevated to the vice presidency, his 3-year stint as governor was marked by constant warfare with the state government. Not only did Dhankhar withhold assent to bills passed by the assembly, his public castigation of the Mamata Banerjee government for its law-and-order record made headlines in all the national newspapers.

The ruling TMC accused him of furthering a communal agenda at the behest of the BJP government at the Centre. Dhankhar’s record as the ex-officio chairman of the Rajya Sabha has been strongly criticised by opposition parties for being blatantly partial to the BJP. Other instances of partisanship include Maharashtra governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari who administered an early morning oath to Devendra Fadnavis and Ajit Pawar in November 2019 to forestall a nonBJP government being formed. His further actions in asking Uddhav Thackeray to prove his majority after the rebellion in the ranks of the Shiv Sena led to the Supreme Court ruling that he had acted illegally. The present Supreme Court case involving Ravi is an important one for the nation— the ruling will set a precedent for similar cases filed by other states. The future of Indian federalism, and democracy, hinges on the outcome.