In a decision pronounced by a Constitutional Bench, the Supreme Court has clarified the law that the Governors hold office till the pleasure of the President. The prerogative of the appointment and removal of the Governor rests solely with the President and even though the Constitution provides a five year term period for the Governor, the President is free to warrant the removal of the Governor prior to the completion of the tenure.
In a public interest litigation it was argued that "a Governor, as the Head of the State, holds a high constitutional office which carries with it important constitutional functions and duties; that the fact that the Governor is appointed by the President and that he holds office during the pleasure of the President does not make the Governor an employee or a servant or agent of the Union Government; and that his independent constitutional office is not subordinate or subservient to the Union Government and he is not accountable to them for the manner in which he carries out his functions and duties as Governor". Thus was submitted that "a Governor should ordinarily be permitted to continue in office for the full term of five years; and though he holds office during the pleasure of the President, he could be removed before the expiry of the term of five years, only in rare and exceptional circumstances, by observing the following constitutional norms and requirements."
The Government, on the other hand, submitted that "the power of the President to remove a Governor under Article 156(1) is absolute and unfettered. The term of five years provided in Article 156(3) is subject to the doctrine of pleasure contained in Article 156(1). The Constitution does not place any restrictions or limitations upon the doctrine of pleasure. Therefore, it is impermissible to read any kind of limitations into the power under Article 156(1). The power of removal is exercised by the President on the advice of the Council of Ministers. The advice tendered by the Council of Ministers cannot be inquired into by any court, having regard to the bar contained in Article 74(2). It was therefore urged that on both these grounds, the removal of Governor is not justiciable."
The Constitutional Bench, in this background, summed up the position of law as under;
(i) Under Article 156(1), the Governor holds office during the pleasure of the President. Therefore, the President can remove the Governor from office at any time without assigning any reason and without giving any opportunity to show cause.
(ii) Though no reason need be assigned for discontinuance of the pleasure resulting in removal, the power under Article 156(1) cannot be exercised in an arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner. The power will have to be exercised in rare and exceptional circumstances for valid and compelling reasons. The compelling reasons are not restricted to those enumerated by the petitioner (that is physical/mental disability, corruption and behaviour unbecoming of a Governor) but are of a wider amplitude. What would be compelling reasons would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
(iii) A Governor cannot be removed on the ground that he is out of sync with the policies and ideologies of the Union Government or the party in power at the Centre. Nor can he be removed on the ground that the Union Government has lost confidence in him. It follows therefore that change in government at Centre is not a ground for removal of Governors holding office to make way for others favoured by the new government.
(iv) As there is no need to assign reasons, any removal as a consequence of withdrawal of the pleasure will be assumed to be valid and will be open to only a limited judicial review. If the aggrieved person is able to demonstrate prima facie that his removal was either arbitrary, malafide, capricious or whimsical, the court will call upon the Union Government to disclose to the court, the material upon which the President had taken the decision to withdraw the pleasure. If the Union Government does not disclose any reason, or if the reasons disclosed are found to be irrelevant, arbitrary, whimsical, or malafide, the court will interfere. However, the court will not interfere merely on the ground that a different view is possible or that the material or reasons are insufficient.
No comments:
Post a Comment