States, governors' tug-of-war lands in Rajya Sabha, Kerala MPs brings in private bills

New Delhi: Two CPI(M) MPs from Kerala wanted to introduce private members bills restricting the powers of Governors in Rajya Sabha on Friday – one managed to do so while the other could not after the BJP MPs raised objections.

AA Rahim introduced The Constitution (Amendment) Bill that makes ministers’ continuation in office at the confidence of the Assembly and not at the pleasure of the Governor while John Brittas’ attempt to table a bill to amend the Constitution to disallow Governors from taking up Chancellorship and other non-Constitutional posts was stalled by BJP.

The CPI(M)-led Kerala government is at loggerheads with Governor Arif Mohammed Khan. The Governor, as Chancellor, had objected to certain decisions on universities while he had also earlier “withdrawn pleasure” on Finance Minister K N Balagopal.

Rahim was the first to introduce his bill without any objection, but when Brittas stood to introduce his bill and explained its rationale, the BJP MPs rose in protest with Sudanshu Trivedi saying the Governor is considered to be representative of the President and if he is asked to abide by the Council of Ministers, then where is the right of the President.

Brittas defended his bill saying there have been enough remarks and observations by different commissions that emphasised that the Governors should act on the advice of the Council of Ministers. “What is happening now is that the Governors are unleashed against elected governments,” he claimed.

As BJP MPs objected, Deputy Chairman Harivansh sought a division of votes which went against Brittas 21-56 and he could not introduce his bill.

While Brittas’ amendment was on Article 158 on the conditions of Governor’s office, Rahim’s amendment was related to Article 164 (1).

Brittas wanted a change in the Constitution to bar Governors from Chancellorship and other posts as well as allow the Chief Minister to assume the post till amendments are made to relevant laws.

Incidentally, Rahim’s bill was also related to restricting powers of the Governor. The existing provisions said a minister could remain in office at the pleasure of the Governor while Rahim wanted to change it to ““so long as they enjoy the confidence of the Legislative Assembly of the State”.

Brittas told reporters that the vehement opposition by the treasury benches and the subsequent denial of the Bill's introduction through a numerical majority not only undermines the spirit of constitution but also sets a perilous precedent in the legislative process vis-a-vis the Private Members’ Bills.