Kerala governor calls for state finance minister’s removal, Vijayan pushes back
The relationship between the Kerala government and governor Arif Mohammad Khan touched a new lowafter the latter wrote to chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan, stating that finance minister KN Balagopal has “lost his pleasure”.
The relationship between Kerala’s Left Democratic Front (LDF) government and governor Arif Mohammad Khan touched a new low on Wednesday after the latter wrote to chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan, stating that finance minister KN Balagopal has “lost his pleasure”, and asked him to take action that is “constitutionally appropriate.”

Vijayan, in response, said that his faith and confidence in Balagopal remained “undiminished”, and that he hoped the governor would appreciate that “no further action needs to be taken in the matter.”
Khan and the state government have been sparring ever since his appointment in September 2019. They sparred over Khan backing the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act in December 2019; the governor turning down permission for a special assembly session to debate the three farm laws in December 2020 and his refusal to renew 11 ordinances in August 2022 among others. To be sure, this is not unique to Kerala as a state ruled by a party that is not part of the National Democratic Alliance that runs the central government. Tamil Nadu and West Bengal have seen their share of friction between the state governments and governors; yet, none has seen instances as frequently as Kerala.
On Monday, Khan sent show cause notices to vice chancellors of nine universities in Kerala, after the Supreme Court, on Friday, quashed the appointment of the vice chancellor of APJ Abdul Kalam Technical University on the grounds that it flouted guidelines of the University Grants Commission, because the search committee recommended only one name to the chancellor, not three. On Sunday. Khan asked for the resignation of the nine VCs by 11.30am on Monday. When they did not resign, he sent them the show cause notices.
The government responded by saying that an order that applies to one case cannot be superimposed on other appointments, and pointed out that Khan had signed off on five of the appointments as chancellor. Khan claimed that he had done so under duress. On Monday, the Kerala high court allowed the nine VCs to stay in office and said they could be removed only after following due procedure. On Tuesday, Khan doubled down and issued similar show-cause notices to the VCs of two more universities.
In his letter to Vijayan dated October 25, Khan took umbrage with a speech made by finance minister KN Balagopal on October 19. Citing media reports, he wrote that the comments were “clearly aimed at tarnishing the image of the governor and lowering the dignity of the office of the governor.”
“But the most disturbing were comments… which seek to stoke the fire of regionalism and provincialism and if allowed to go unchecked they may have erosive and baneful influence on our national unity and integrity,” Khan added in the letter.
“VC of Banaras Hindu University in UP has 50 to 100 security guards. People coming from such places will obviously find it difficult to understand the functioning of universities here,” the letter quoted Balagopal as saying. Khan is from Uttar Pradesh.
Khan claimed “the minister flouted the oath of office and questioned very integrity of the country,” and that he tried to create a wedge between two states. “His comments challenge not only the national unity and integrity but also constitutional convention that makes it necessary that the governor of each state shall be from outside the state,” he said in the letter.
“The reported statements of Shri KN Balagopal are nothing short of the violation of oath I had administered to him. A minister who deliberately violates the oath and undermines the unity and integrity of India cannot continue to enjoy my pleasure. In these circumstances, I am left with no option but to convey that Shri KN 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,” Khan wrote.
In his response to the governor on Wednesday, Vijayan said the minister’s speech could not be construed as a comment against nationalism or integrity of the nation. “My trust and confidence in Balagopal, who is holding the charge of finance portfolio, still remains undiminished. I hope the honourable governor will appreciate that no further action needs to be taken in the matter,” Vijayan said.
Balagopal declined to comment on the issue but said he was aware that a letter had been sent to the chief minister and had been replied to.
Legal experts opine that Khan may have exceeded his brief. “A constitutional crisis may be brewing in Kerala. The governor cannot act on his own like this. He is trying to give a larger perspective to personal comments,” said Supreme Court lawyer M R Abhilash.
Article 163 of the Constitution says that there shall be a council of ministers with the chief minister at the head to aid and advise the governor in the exercise of his functions, “except in so far as he is by or under this Constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion.” What comes under the ambit of a governor’s discretion has been illustrated by the Supreme Court in a raft of judgments.
A Constitution bench judgment in ‘Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix Vs Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (2016)’ held that even though the governor may be authorised to exercise some functions, under different provisions of the Constitution, the same are required to be exercised only on the basis of the aid and advice tendered to him under Article 163, unless the governor has been expressly authorised, by or under a constitutional provision, to discharge the function concerned, in his own discretion.
In AG Perarivalan Vs State in 2022, the Supreme Court illustrated the areas where the governor needs to act in his discretion or to the satisfaction of the President. The judgment cited constitutional provisions relating to promulgation of ordinance, suspension of a member of a public service commission and proclamation of emergency in the state to map out certain instances where the governor can exercise his discretion. In its verdict, the court said the governor is but a “shorthand expression” for the state government.
The Supreme Court’s 1974 judgment in Samsher Singh Vs State of Punjab clarified that the satisfaction required by the Constitution is not the personal satisfaction of the President or of the governor but is the satisfaction of the President or of the governor in the constitutional sense under the cabinet system of government. “It is the satisfaction of the council of ministers on whose aid and advice the President or the Governor generally exercises all his powers and functions,” underscored the court.
The Constitution bench ruling in Maru Ram Vs Union of India (1980) also stressed that the governor is the formal head and sole repository of the executive power but is incapable of acting except on, and according to, the advice of his council of ministers.
The Left understandably rallied behind Balagopal. “What can we do if he (Khan) forgets about his role? He is becoming a subject of self ridicule,” said CPI state secretary Kanam Rajendran.
On the issue of the VCs, a senior Kerala government official said that while conversations for legal remedies were on, this was a technical issue, and any approach to the Supreme Court would have to be a deeply considered move.