Governor Arif Mohammed Khan on Monday accorded sanction to the government to convoke the Assembly on December 31 for a one-day emergency session to discuss the national-level farmer’s agitation and its implications for the State’s food security.
Mr. Khan had triggered a political impasse when he sought more clarification on the need for an urgent session, thereby thwarting the government’s initial attempt to hold the sitting on December 21.
Mr. Khan disagreed with the government’s position that the Governor was bound by the cabinet’s recommendation to summon the Assembly and that he had no choice in the matter.
Raj Bhavan insisted that the Governor was well within his powers to seek the reason for an impromptu session of the Assembly without serving advance notice (minimum 15 days) to legislators.
The conflicting positions earned Mr. Khan severe criticism from the ruling front and the Congress-led Opposition.
Mr. Khan refrained from making any public statement. However, he upped the ante by insisting that the government had failed to convey, with clarity of purpose, the urgency to convene the Assembly at short notice.
Sore point
The report that the emergency sitting was a cover for the government to pass a resolution against the agriculture reform laws had emerged as the underlying sore point between the administration and Raj Bhavan.
Mr. Khan felt the legislature lacked the “jurisdiction to offer a solution” to the farmers’ strike prompted by the Central laws. In the past, Mr. Khan had expressed scepticism whether the Assembly could discuss or hazard a judgement on the constitutional validity of laws enacted by Parliament.
He had aired a similar sentiment when the Assembly passed a resolution against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in December 2019.
Raj Bhavan found the explanation of the government partial and imprecise initially. Soon, Speaker P. Sreeramakrishnan, Law Minister A.K. Balan, and Agriculture Minister V.S. Sunil Kumar met Mr. Khan and stated the government’s case.
Mr. Khan reportedly said he had not refused assent but only sought more clarification.
