This is clear from the Governor’s rejection of the government’s explanation of its appeal in the Supreme Court seeking scrapping of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).

The Governor had sought an explanation from the government on its decision to move the apex court on the ground that it was in clear violation of the rules. Khan reiterated his stand during his meeting with the Chief Secretary, who had been sent to explain the government’s stand. “It is unlawful and legally not correct. So, no explanation can satisfy. They have gone to the court without informing me. That is unlawful,” he said.

The Governor’s contention is that the state government can go to the Supreme Court only after informing him as per the Transaction of Business Rules under Article 166 of the Constitution. The violation of this rule amounts to violation of the Constitution. That is the crux of the Governor’s argument.

The Governor is, however, clearly in the wrong when he says this. The Supreme Court in its ruling of 1952 on the Dattatreya Mureshwar Pangarkar Vs State of Bombay states that the violation of the Transaction of Business Rules does not amount to violation of the Constitution; and that there can be no consequences for violation of the Business rules.

The apex court repeated the ruling in its judgment in the 2013 Chhattisgarh Vs Madhya Pradesh case. Since it is the SC’s job to interpret the Constitution, its word in the matter is final and binding. This being the reality, the Kerala Governor is wrong in his contention.

There is another case in which the government’s decision to move court without the Governor’s permission was challenged: Shamsher Singh Vs Speaker of Punjab. In this case, the seven-member bench said the endorsement of the President or Governors cannot be personal. It can only be the endorsement of the State Cabinet. Therefore, the complaint that the Chief Minister issued the order without the Governor’s permission does not hold water.

In yet another case in 2006 - Rameshwar Prasad Vs Union of India – the court says that in case of a conflict, the Governor must go by the wishes of the State Assembly.

The Governors’ oath of secrecy also says, “I shall devote myself to the service and well-being of the people.”

In the case of Kerala, the State Assembly’s resolution sent to the Centre reflects the overwhelming wishes and sentiments of the people of the state. Therefore, the Governor simply cannot go against the wishes of the people by voicing a contrary opinion.

The Kerala Governor is also silent on his own violation of rules governing the conduct of a Governor. There are several SC rulings which say that a Governor cannot and must not function as the agent of the Central Government. He must also refrain from making political statements openly. He can either write to the Chief Minister or summon him to the Raj Bhavan to express his displeasure in person. But Governors rushing to the press at every available opportunity –Governor Arif Mohammed Khan has been doing exactly that - is simply wrong.

In a significant development, which must embarrass the BJP leadership no end, the lone BJP MLA in the Kerala Assembly, O. Rajagopal, said the Governor and the Chief Minister must exercise restraint. It is not proper for the Governor to make public statements. In case of differences, the Governor should discuss things with the Chief Minister and settle amicably, Rajagopal said. (IPA Service)