SC-LD GOVERNOR 2LST

"Governors cannot be politically active. We therefore
reject the contention of the respondents that Governors should
be in sync with the policies of the Union Government or should
subscribe to the ideology of the party in power at the
Centre," the apex court said.
"While some of them may come from a political
background, once they are appointed as Governors, they owe
their allegiance and loyalty to the Constitution and not to
any political party and are required to preserve, protect and
defend the Constitution," the court said.
The apex court held that although the Centre need not
assign any reason for removing the Constitutional head of
state but such action can be judically reviewed and the
government has to explain before it.
"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,"
the court asserted.
The landmark decision came on a PIL filed in 2004
by senior Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader B P Singhal
challenging the removal of Governors of Uttar Pradesh,
Gujarat, Haryana and Orissa states by the previous UPA
government.
The PIL had contended that the President could not
have removed the Governors of four states on the advice of the
Centre disregarding the Constitutional provision which fixed
five-year term for them.
Observing that the President has power to remove
Governor anytime without assigning any reason and without
giving any opportunity to show cause, the court said that such
authority cannot be used arbitrarily.
"Though no reason need be assigned for discontinuance
of the pleasure (of the president) resulting in removal, the
power under Article 156(1) cannot be exercised in an
arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner. The power will
have to beexercised in rare and exceptional circumstances for
valid and compelling reasons," the bench said.
The court, however, did not enumerate reasons under
which the government can take such action against the
Governor.
"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,"
the court said. PTI ATR
MRD


The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this
message are intended for the exclusive
use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged
information. If you are not the intended
recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please
notify the sender immediately and destroy
all copies of this message and any attachments contained in it.



Delete & Prev | Delete & Next