FEDERATION VERSUS FREEDOM 291
arising out of the necessities of a federal constitution. All I want you to note is that this is a very significant change.
The next thing to note about the Federal Executive is that although the Governor-General is the Executive Authority for the Federation, there are conditions laid down for the exercise of his powers as the Federal Executive. The constitution divides the matters falling within his executive authority into four classes and prescribes how he is to exercise his executive authority in respect of each of these four classes. In certain matters the Governor-General
(1) is to act in his own discretion ; (2) In certain matters he is to act on the advice of his Ministers ; (3) in certain matters he is to act after consultation with his Ministers, and (4) in certain matters he is to act according to his individual judgment. A word may be said as to the de jure connotation that underlies these four cases of the exercise of the executive authority by the Governor-General. The best way to begin to explain this de jure connotation is to begin by explaining what is meant by “acting on the advice of his ministers.” This means, in those matters the government is really carried on, on the authority of the Ministers and only in the name of the GovernorGeneral. To put the same thing differently, the advice of the Ministers is binding on the Governor-General and he cannot differ from their advice. With regard to the matters where the Governor-General is allowed “to act in his discretion” what is meant is that the Government is not only carried on in the name of the Governor-General, but is also carried on the authority of the Governor-General. That means that there can be no intervention or interference by the Ministers at any stage. The Ministers have no right to tender any advice and the Governor-General is not bound to seek their advice ; or to make it concrete, the files with regard to these matters need not go to the Ministers at all. “Acting in his individual judgment” means that while the matter is within the advisory jurisdiction of the Minister, the Minister has no final authority to decide. The final authority to decide is the GovernorGeneral. The distinction between “in his discretion” and “in his individual judgment” is this that while in regard to matters falling “in his discretion” the Ministers have no right to tender advice to the Governor-General, the Ministers have a right to tender advice when the matter is one which falls under “his individual judgment”. To put it differently in regard to matters which are subject to his individual judgment the Governor-General is bound to receive advice from his ministers but is not bound to follow their advice. He may consider their advice, but may act otherwise and differently from the advice given by the Ministers. But in respect of matters which are subject to his discretion he is not bound even to receive the advice of his Ministers. The phrase “after consultation” is a mere matter of procedure. The authority in such matter vests in the Governor-General. All that is required is that he should take into account the wishes of the Ministers. Cases relating to