The furore over the creation of the Cabinet Advisory Committee by Mr Parrikar before his departure for an indefinite period for treatment, is actually unwarranted because of its temporary nature and the clear underlining of the fact that the committee has very little or real powers.
The communication from the Chief Minister to the Governor on March 5, on the eve of his departure actually underlines how much of control the chief minister will exercise by remote control, placing absolute trust in the two senior most bureaucrats the Chief Secretary and the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister and the officials of the Finance and the Personnel departments.
The area of concern therefore, should be less about the whether such an arrangement can be made but more about how long can the state be run in such a manner, where an ailing Chief Minister, undergoing treatment abroad, resides over all critical decision making. While Mr Parrikar is completely capable of functioning in such a manner till his health permits and can return to take full charge, the apprehension is that this cannot work much longer than March 31, the time, limit for this arrangement to cease.
Cabinet meetings in critical issues like changes in the TCP act, the notification of key policies, decisions of tourism, finance, infrastructure among others cannot be done through circulation or video conferencing for long. Within days of Mr Parrikar’s departure we have seen how an ill-conceived “mining delegation” to the centre was sent packing by Nitin Gadkari who asked ministers in the delegation to return with a proper cabinet approval of what Goa wanted the centre to do, no to cease the functioning of mines. Now a decision of this nature may be discussed post an agenda note to the CAC and even if the CAC clears it, this still does not become a cabinet decision.
Curchorem MLA Nilesh Cabral’s outburst to a local TV channel that there is no functioning government in Goa anymore, is indicative of the frustration within the MLAs of the mining belt. Another BJP minister from the mining belt remarked that the situation is “getting alarming and out of control”.
The powers, functions and most importantly the limitations of the CAC are explicit in the Chief Ministers note to the Governor on March 5, which has thereafter been converted into an official order. Reproducing the relevant excerpts of the note is self explanatory:
Excerpt 1 ) Decide unanimously amongst themselves on certain important financial year ending issues and /or other time bound/ emergency matter. The Committee shall before taking any decision as regards financial matters, consult the Department of Finance.
The last sentence of the above point vests final power in the Finance Department and not in the CAC. Finance department officials like Michael D’Souza do not engage with anyone other than the Chief Minister and that is not going to change. The Finance department recognizes only one boss, Manohar Parrikar.
Excerpt 2) No Order shall be issued (apart from matters indicated at para (d) above, as regards any major or important matters concerning the portfolios of Finance, Home, Personnel and General Administration until the same are approved by me (Parrikar) and the approval is duly communicated in the matter as I (Parrikar) have directed the Chief Secretary.
In matters concerning his own departments the Chief Minister continues to be the last word. The CAC cannot even pass orders on matters concerning his departments barring urgent financial ones with the consultation of the Finance department.
For all day to day matters the Chief Secretary in consultation with Principal Secretary to Chief Minister will deal with them and keep the Chief Minister, in New York, abreast.
The Cabinet Advisory Committee is required to merely hand hold so that the government can transact business till March 31. The power to make such arrangement flows from Article 163 of the constitution, through which Rules of Business are framed by such a state. Once framed these business rules are allocated and then the matrix of Transaction of such business is determined through 54 such rules. This current arrangement of governance, is being made under Rule 17 and 18 of the Rules of Business Government of Goa, 1991
Therefore the power to create such exigency provisions remain vested in the Chief Minister as head of the government and issued in the name of the Governor, by the Chief Secretary, as has been done.
Goa’s present scenario is unique and not without much precedence and therefore this arrangement of governance can clearly be called “not habitual”, but it isn’t unconstitutional. But the big ask is, will this be effective and for how long?
Governance happens in letter and as well as spirit. And the longer such an ad hoc arrangement is allowed to persist, the spirit of governance will suffer.
