Against the spirit of federalism

As of now, the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister E Palanisamy of the AIADMK seems to be in charge of affairs. The political turmoil in Tamil Nadu seems to have subsided, albeit temporarily. It could well be a lull before another storm. After Palanisamy had won the trust vote in the Tamil Nadu Assembly, the opposition DMK petitioned the Madras High Court to cancel the vote. The Madras High Court adjourned the hearing of the petition till the week starting on February 27. In case the trust vote is cancelled, the focus will again shift to the future behaviour of the Governor of Tamil Nadu vis-à-vis asking for a new trust vote and government continuation or formation.

So let's take advantage of this relatively placid if transient scenario and look back at what happened around the issue of Chief Ministership of Tamil Nadu and the role of the Governor of Tamil Nadu in that affair. With the guilty verdict on Sasikala Natarajan, the stand of the Governor of Tamil Nadu in not inviting Sasikala to form the government or prove her majority has been hailed in certain quarters as evidence of his farsightedness. The governor of Tamil Nadu might have been farsighted because he set his sight on things that are far from his brief. And that is a huge problem in a federal democracy like the Indian Union.

After O.Panneerselvam had resigned from the position of General Secretary of the AIADMK, Sasikala Narataran became the General Secretary. O.Panneerselvam thereafter tendered his resignation from the Chief Minister's post, according to the unanimous (which now appears to be not unanimous but a huge majority) wishes of the legislature party of the AIADMK in the Tamil Nadu Assembly. The Governor of Tamil Nadu accepted his resignation, and O.Panneerselvam was asked to continue as the caretaker Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu till a new Chief Minister was appointed. The AIADMK wanted Sasikala Natarajan to be the new Chief Minister, and a stupendous majority of the MLAs of the AIADMK elected her the leader of the AIADMK legislature party in a meeting of MLAs. None of this was illegal. At this point, O.Panneerselvam rebelled against the AIADMK party leadership and claimed that actually, most AIADMK MLAs were secretly supportive of him. He also argued that Sasikala Natarajan and her associates were holding AIADMK MLAs in particular locations against their wish. This is kidnapping. If this charge were true, the then acting Chief Minister O.Panneerselvam had the authority to send in police to these locations and rescue the so-called 'kidnapped' MLAs. He did no such thing but continue to parrot the kidnapping theory. His bluff was called when even after Sasikala's arrest, the AIADMK legislature party, ostensibly freed from the clutches of Sasikala were now free to choose their leader. They did, and they did not choose Panneerselvam but rallied behind E Palanisamy, the successor who has full support of Sasikala. In the trust vote, 122 MLAs voted for the AIADMK government led by E Palanisamy. The Panneerselvam camp could garner only 11 votes. Sasikala's chosen successor Palanisamy showed he commanded an absolute majority in the Tamil Nadu Assembly and a stupendous majority among AIADMK MLAs. Through all of these events, what has been most troubling is the undemocratic behaviour of the Governor of Tamil Nadu.

It appears that the Governor of Tamil Nadu C Vidyasagar Rao essentially chose to suspend democracy in Tamil Nadu for quite a few days and continued with an unrepresentative and hence undemocratic regime instead. After O Panneerselvam's resignation, the Governor of Tamil Nadu was handed the signed list of MLAs supporting Sasikala as Chief Minister. This list constituted a majority of the Tamil Nadu Assembly. Sasikala, at that point, has no bar to holding the office of Chief Minister. Under which law or article of the Constitution did the Governor of Tamil Nadu not invite the person who had the support of the majority of MLAs of the Tamil Nadu Assembly to form the government? A majority of MLAs of Tamil Nadu represent the majority viewpoint of the people of Tamil Nadu in a representative democracy. From where did the Governor get the power to deny the people a government? A state without a representative government is essentially autocracy. Why did the Governor continue in this situation? He chose to stay away from Tamil Nadu for days altogether when there was essentially a dangerous power and governance vacuum in Tamil Nadu because a Governor sought to deny a people their chosen government. Who does he think he is?

The Governor is not elected by the people of Tamil Nadu. He doesn't represent their political choice. The MLAs of Tamil Nadu are elected by the people of Tamil Nadu. They represent their political choice. Thus, when a Governor denies the chance to form government to the person elected by a majority of MLAs of Tamil Nadu as their leader, an unelected person denies the people of Tamil Nadu to exercise their political choice through their elected representatives. Whether Sasikala was guilty or not, was for the courts to decide. The Governor is not the court. It is not his job to decide or predict whether, in 10 days or 10 weeks or 10 months, someone might be convicted.

No article in the Constitution says that a government or a Chief Minister has to have some minimum tenure or that if someone has a possibility of a conviction at a future date, then that person cannot be appointed as Chief Minister. Then on what ground did the Governor of Tamil Nadu deny a representative government to the people of Tamil Nadu at that point? His job was to ascertain who commanded a majority in the Tamil Nadu Assembly. He was presented with a list of MLAs representing the majority of Tamil Nadu Assembly. Did he suspect that the list was false? In that case, he could have asked for a parade of MLAs. Sasikala had offered to do that given the Governor's intransigence. Palanisamy's trust vote shows that Sasikala's list was not fraudulent. The Governor simply overruled the majority opinion of the people of Tamil Nadu, because he could. It is immaterial whether he was right or wrong. The relevant legal and Constitutional question is: is that his job? Does the Governor of a state, not under President's Rule, have any right to deny to the person chosen by a majority of MLAs to form the government when no article of the Constitution disqualifies the person? That is the real question that the Governor of Tamil Nadu has to answer.

There is a reason to believe that the charges of partisanship against the Governor of Tamil Nadu are not without substance. This Governor C Vidyasagar Rao, a veteran of BJP-Jansangh for more the 40 years, gave ample opportunity anti-AIADMK forces in Tamil Nadu to try to break the party assisted by his delay. The party, which has fished the most in these troubled waters, is the BJP whose support for the O.Panneerselvam group was quite open. That is not surprising. O.Panneerselvam, in his brief regime, bartered away Tamil Nadu's state rights when it agreed to the UDAY scheme, something that J.Jayalalithaa had opposed on the grounds of encroachment on federal structure. Thus, Delhi had found a pliant partner in O.Panneerselvam. Their horse did not win the race, even though Delhi tried its best through its man in Chennai.

Who does the Governor represent? Time and again, it is seen that the Governor represents the Union government. Thus, we see Governors toppling only those State governments ruled by parties that are not in power at the Centre. The most recent instance of this shameless act happened recently in Arunachal Pradesh. Even more recently, the Governor of Tripura refused to read passages critical of the Union government – a House speech that is prepared by Tripura's Council of Ministers and thus represents the majority viewpoint of the people of Tripura. Who is the Governor to ignore the majority view in a representative government? The Governor is not sovereign. Not even the President of the Indian Union is sovereign. Only the people are. This is what makes the Indian Union a Republic.