One may, as a knee jerk response, ask a counter question: What is wrong?
Let me tell what is wrong:
1. When an elected representative discusses state matters relating to legislation in a legislative assembly, legislative council, Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha, he talks as a representative of the people, therefore for his constituents and the public to know what position he takes on various issues is a must.
2. But when some of the representatives are administered oath of office to function as a minister or in Constitutional terms an Executive, he dons the role of a legislator within the House; and as a link between the executive and the Assembly or the Parliament, as the case may be, when he is a minister of the Cabinet
3. Though the ministers are all elected or have to get themselves elected to continue, when they are a part of the Cabinet, the decision of the Cabinet is authoritative and has the force of the executive. That executive decision making process is not open to review even by the Supreme Courts, except on extremely narrow grounds because the Cabinet is tasked with a job, which has to take into account not only the broad policy but the implication of security, our positions taken before other countries, positions taken before courts, resources stated to be available but unavailable because of logistics; which may have apparent contradictions but in the broad implementation have to be given a shape with necessary alterations.
4. The PM and the CMs are the heads of the respective executive branches they head, and there are bound to be facts which are apparently not so but could be managed to look so, and these Heads have an unthankful job of having to carry the mistakes and blunders of their predecessors and also the unforeseen benefits for which they themselves may not have been responsible, even though such Heads are eager to appropriate the benefits and malign those whose decisions have left a bad impact, they still have to manage not only the day to day affairs but also have a reasonably long vision to cover up the systemic deficiencies besides attempting to propel the State or the Nation in the path of growth.
5. As such, the meetings that happen among the Executives NEED NOT be accessible or made accessible to the public.
6. Further in meetings of such nature, where the vulnerabilities of the States and the Nation are discussed threadbare, the morale of the common man is likely to be affected and the not-so-well-wishers of a particular party are likely to highlight certain factual observations made in those meetings to portray certain persons in poor light, which is to be avoided.
7. Does the intent of the CM matter? No, not at all. Whether he did it to convince his constituents of his goodwill or to portray the foibles of others is not a matter to be looked into at all. Whether the CM did it or not, is a fact, which is the only thing to be considered.
8. Further, i know of no law which has a direct prescription on this. However, using logic, even if there was a direct live telecast, it must have been only done when the CM presented the issues relating to his state. As the head of the Executive of the state (though the Lt. Gov is the constitutional executive head), he should have known that there is a Doctrine of Notice, especially when even in public places, which are frequented by all and sundry, Notice is kept that the place is under electronic surveillance, therefore in a meeting chaired by the PM, if the CM had NOT NOTIFIED the PM and his other equals that he was transmitting his interactions Live, the CM would have had the opportunity to calibrate his behaviour as acceptable as he was aware of the live telecast and the others including the PM were not aware and could have reacted or uttered certain things, which could be portrayed to diminish their image and standing.
9. This NON NOTIFYING the persons is, to say the least uncivilised behaviour in oneupmanship and in total barbarous!
10. There may be disputes, between and among political parties, but to bring it to a meeting at a juncture of uncertainties -including multiple medical propositions doing the rounds as authentic prescriptions, confusing the population, the CM should have shown some restraint from these cheap methodologies.
11. The Prime Minister, despite such a provocation, maintained the dignity of office. I bow my head to the exemplary restrained dignity shown by the most powerful person in India today. That is very very difficult when one is powerful.