Being one of the few survivors of the communist state in India, Kerala has never refrained from major political stances in the past which have been inclined towards a Leftist approach against the Politics of the Right.
The government of Kerala announced that it would knock at the door of the Supreme Court against Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), that lead much to the Governor, Arif Muhammed Khan’s annoyance, a Member of the BJP which makes his stance distinct. He says it is “unlawful” for the government moving to Supreme Court without him being informed.
LK Bala, a law minister, explained that the move doesn’t violate any terms stated in the Constitution and the government had no intention to attack Mr Khan’s authority.
The question of the debate over the role of the Governor on a state arises here. According to The Indian Constitution, the government cannot pass any bills without the consent of the Governor first.
The essential capacity of the senator is to save, secure and shield the Constitution and the law as consolidated in his/her promise of office under Article 159 of the Indian Constitution in the organization of the State issues. All his/her activities, suggestions and supervisory forces (Article 167c, Article 200, Article 213, Article 355, and so forth.) over the official and authoritative elements of a State will be utilized to actualize the arrangements of the Constitution.
Considering that Mr Khan is a graduate of Aligarh Muslim University, his stance on CAA comes under question, with the increased role of AMU students in formations and movement against CAA. An Alumni of AMU standing in favour of CAA depicts him as a person inclined extremely towards his political affiliations, is often considered as a sign to be an undemocratic leader.
The debate here arises regarding the role of the government in state affairs and how in the past Chief Minister vs the governor cases have been solved with central interventions.