Thiruvananthapuram: Governor Arif Mohammed Khan has acted on his threat. He has withdrawn his pleasure in finance minister K N Balagopal for "violating his oath of office and undermining the unity and integrity of India". However, Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan has politely rejected the Governor's reasoning saying his trust and confidence in the finance minister remains "undiminished".

According to the Governor, the finance minister committed the violation by trying to "create a wedge between Kerala and other States of Indian Union and project a false impression as if different States of India have different systems of higher education". This was stated in a missive to Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on October 25.

The provocation was the minister's comment that those from Uttar Pradesh would not be able to understand the educational institutions in Kerala. The minister said this in the context of the Supreme Court verdict annulling the vice chancellor's appointment in the A P J Abdul Kalam Technological University, and the Governor's hint that appointments in other universities were equally void. The minister's mention of UP, the Governor saw as an indirect dig at him as he hailed from the north India state.

The Governor relied on newspaper reports to build up his case. His letter said that many attempts were being made to tarnish the office of the Governor. "But the most disturbing were the comments made by the Finance Minister, K N Balagopal, which seek to stoke the fire of regionalism and provincialism and if allowed to go unchecked they may have a corrosive and baneful influence on our national unity and integrity," the letter said.

"In these circumstances, I am left with no option but to convey that Shri. K N Balagopal has ceased to enjoy my pleasure. I hope that you will consider the matter with the seriousness it deserves and take action which is constitutionally appropriate," the Governor stated in the letter.

If the Governor wants the minister sacked then the Chief Minister has already conveyed that he will not. "Viewed from a Constitutional perspective, factoring in the democratic conventions and traditions of our country, the statement cannot warrant a ground for cessation of enjoyment of the Governor's pleasure," the Chief Minister wrote to the Governor in return. "My trust and confidence in K N Balagopal, a member of the council of ministers of the state of Kerala, holding charge of the finance portfolio still remain undiminished. I hope the Hon'ble Governor will appreciate that no further action needs to be taken in the matter," he said.

Even earlier, the Chief Minister had made it clear that the Governor's withdrawal of pleasure meant nothing constitutionally. "I don't think his understanding of the pleasure doctrine tallies with the general understanding of it," the Chief Minister had told the media on October 24. "First he said he has withdrawn his pleasure and later he said the ministers can still stay on," the Chief Minister ridiculed the Governor's remark.

Further, he categorically stated: "The Governor has no right to either appoint or remove ministers. This is a Chief Minister's prerogative". In turn, the Governor had said that the ministers were only recommended by the Chief Minister but were appointed by the Governor.

Khan also seemed to suggest that the withdrawal of pleasure is a serious matter. He said ministers were forced to resign for criticising the President. "They had to resign even before the president had to withdraw his pleasure," Governor Khan said.

Nonetheless, there is no precedent of a minister being sacked after a Governor had withdrawn his pleasure.

Significantly, Arif Mohammed Khan has withdrawn his pleasure only in the finance minister and not law minister P Rajeeve who had earlier said the Governor's actions could be reviewed. The law minister's comments, too, had badly provoked the Governor. He even called him "ignorant". In fact, the Governor had publicly stated that he would withdraw his pleasure in both the finance and law ministers.

The Governor also made it clear that other ministers like higher education minister R Bindu were also using any chance available to obliquely criticise him.

What is the 'pleasure doctrine'

The pleasure doctrine flows from Article 164 of the Constitution. "The Chief Minister shall be appointed by the Governor and the other Ministers shall be appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister, and the Ministers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor," it says.

It is widely held that the phrase "pleasure of the Governor" is simply a ritualistic version of "pleasure of the Chief Minister". This is mainly because of two factors. One, the ministers are picked by the Chief Minister, the Governor blindly endorses them. Two, Article 164 does not say the Chief Minister's term, like that of the ministers, is dependent on the Governor's pleasure. This, it is said, is proof that the Constitutional framers used the Governor as a symbolic stand-in for the Chief Minister. In short, for a minister to go, the Chief Minister, and not the Governor, should withdraw his pleasure.