Amid the tussle between the state government and governor, Jagdeep Dhankhar, over a range of issues, the latter has now, after seeking replies to queries relating to several decisions taken by the state, summoned chief minister Mamata Banerjee to Raj Bhavan for talks.
The governor, in his letter to the chief minister, wrote “Dialogue, discussion and deliberation, particularly amongst constitutional functionaries, like the chief minister and the governor, are quintessential to democracy and inseparable part of constitutional governance. All my earnest efforts in this direction have unfortunately not fructified in view of the stance at your end. Such a scenario has potential to lead to a constitutional stalemate which we both are ordained by our oath to avert.”
He added, “There has been no response, now for long, to issues legitimately flagged and in respect of which there is a constitutional duty at your end under article 167 of the Constitution to impart information. There are other worrisome aspects also that call for urgent consultations. I would, thus, urge you to effect a response to all issues flagged thus far at the earliest and make it convenient for interaction at Raj Bhavan anytime during the week ahead”.
It is to be recalled that recently the Governor sought information regarding purchases made during the pandemic period, Pegasus Enquiry Commission, BGBS, Bengal Aerotropolis Project, Gorkhaland Territorial Administration, MAA Canteen and State Finance Commission. He also sought information on the expenses towards funds spent out of the Consolidated Fund of the State for making print and electronic advertisements on behalf of the state government, including expenses relating to ‘antiCAA’ and the details about the lease agreement with the private company in connection with chartering/leasing of a private plane.
The governor reminded the state government that though it asserts “commitment to the Constitution”, in practice, there is “continually, and serially extreme transgressions of constitutional prescriptions, justifying the National Human Rights Commission’s observation that in the state there is “Law of the ruler, not rule of law.”
He asserted that it is undoubtedly the constitutional duty of the chief minister “to furnish such information relating to the administration of the affairs of the State and proposals for legislation as the governor may call for. No information can be screened from the governor once he seeks the same. Any failure would indicate that “state government is unable to function according to Constitutional provisions”.