THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The order of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court in a case in Uttar Pradesh in 2015 regarding the withdrawal of the Governor's pleasure to the minister was a setback for the then Governor. The minister did not resign. The case is that Azam Khan, who was the then UP minister, made bad remarks against the Governor during the discussion on the Nagar Nigam Bill in the Assembly in 2015.

The Governor, who summoned the video of the Assembly debate, found that defamatory remarks had been made against him. A letter was sent to the Speaker stating that his displeasure with the Minister. A person approached the court stating that this was sufficient proof that the governor had displeasure against the minister. The demand was to expel the minister according to Article 164 of the Constitution. A quo warranto petition to disqualify the minister had also reached the court. However, the court ruled in favor of the government.

The current scenario is Kerala is almost similar to UP.

Arguments of UP govt

*Remarks made by members of the Legislative Assembly are not subject to judicial review.

*The Speaker has the authority to take action. References removed from assembly records will not be available in public.

*There are court orders that it is not the judiciary but the administrative leadership that should decide whether minister should continue in office.

*Although the minister can continue as long as he has the pleasure of the Governor, the withdrawal of the pleasure must be by consensus on the advice of the Chief Minister.

Court order

*The governor has not issued a notification withdrawing the minister.

*The note containing the displeasure of the Governor should not be subjected to judicial review.

*Governor, Speaker and Chief Minister should solve the problem.