Governor Arif Mohammad Khan has indicated that he is likely to skip the State government’s opposition towards the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) in his policy address to the Assembly on Wednesday.
Responding to Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan’s reply to his letter of January 25 on the clarification sought by the Raj Bhavan on the draft policy address, Mr. Khan on Tuesday came out against equating the ‘‘policies and programmes of the government with the views of the government” and reiterated that they were “totally different and carry different meanings.”
“By no stretch of imagination, can the term ‘view’ be construed as part of a policy or a programme,” he pointed out to Mr. Vijayan.
Quoting Article 163(2) and 176 (1) of the Constitution, the Governor reiterated that Para 18 of the draft address submitted to him for approval had been rightly described as a view and that it did not qualify to be termed either as policy or programme of the government.
“I am bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers to acquaint the members of the House with the policies and programmes of the government. But, Article 176(1) or the ruling of the Supreme Court does not say that I am bound to give expression to the views of the government which relate to extraneous subjects, which constitutionally speaking, do not come under the jurisdiction of the State government,” the Governor said.
The Chief Minister has been asked to treat the ‘draft as approved on January 25 as the final approved version of the address to the Kerala Legislative Assembly on January 29.’
If the government is of the view that the CAA had substantial ramification on entries in the State List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution such as Public Order, the Governor said, the case should be submitted to him separately as required under Section 34 (2) iii of the Rules of Business of the Government of Kerala.
Mr. Khan invoked sub rule (c) and (d) of Rule 119 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Kerala Assembly which placed a bar on discussing any subject which was either sub judice or did not come under the jurisdiction of the State government.
Quoting Article 163 (2) and ruling of the Supreme Court, the Governor said that he could act in his “discretion” if the exercise of function was beyond the purview of the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers but was by or under the Constitution.
