CURRENT AFFAIR
BP SINGHAL vs UOI
It briefly looked at the key constitutional provisions, the law laid down by the Supreme Court, and some recommendations made by different commissions that have examined this issue.
What does the Constitution say?
As per Article 155 and Article 156 of the Constitution, a Governor of a state is an appointee of the President, and he or she holds office “during the pleasure of the President”. If a Governor continues to enjoy the “pleasure of the President”, he or she can be in office for a term of five years. Because the President is bound to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers under Article 74 of the Constitution, in effect it is the central government that appoints and removes the Governors. “Pleasure of the President” merely refers to this will and wish of the central government.
The Supreme Court’s interpretation
1. The President, in effect the central government, has the power to remove a Governor at any time without giving him or her any reason, and without granting an opportunity to be heard.
2. However, this power cannot be exercised in an arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner. The power of removing Governors should only be exercised in rare and exceptional circumstances for valid and compelling reasons.
3. The mere reason that a Governor is at variance with the policies and ideologies of the central government, or that the central government has lost confidence in him or her, is not sufficient to remove a Governor. Thus, a change in central government cannot be a ground for removal of Governors, or to appoint more favourable persons to this post.
4. A decision to remove a Governor can be challenged in a court of law.
5. In such cases, first the petitioner will have to make a prima facie case of arbitrariness or bad faith on part of the central government. ---à If a prima facie case is established, the court can require the central government to produce the materials on the basis of which the decision was made in order to verify the presence of compelling reasons.
6. It asserted that a Governor was “not an employee of the Union Government, nor the agent of the party in power nor required to act under the dictates of political parties” and that they are “not expected or required to implement the policies of the government or popular mandates.”
7. It also differentiated between the office of the Governor and the offices of ministers and Attorney General, all of whom hold office “during the pleasure of the President” and can be removed without any restrictions.
8. “Governor is the Constitutional head of the state. He is not an employee or an agent of the Union government nor a part of any political team. On the other hand, a minister is hand-picked member of the Prime Minister’s team. The relationship between the Prime
9. Minister and a minister is purely political. Though the Attorney General holds a public office, there is an element of lawyer-client relationship between the Union government and the Attorney General. Loss of confidence will therefore be very relevant criterion for withdrawal of pleasure, in the case of a minister or the Attorney General, but not a relevant ground in the case of a Governor, “ it clarified.
In summary, this means that the central government enjoys the power to remove Governors of the different states, as long as it does not act arbitrarily, without reason, or in bad faith.
Recommendations of Various Commissions
Three important commissions have examined this issue.
· The Sarkaria Commission (1988) recommended that Governors must not be removed before completion of their five year tenure, except in rare and compelling circumstances. This was meant to provide Governors with a measure of security of tenure, so that they could carry out their duties without fear or favour.
· If such rare and compelling circumstances did exist, the Commission said that the procedure of removal must allow the Governors an opportunity to explain their conduct, and the central government must give fair consideration to such explanation. It was further recommended that Governors should be informed of the grounds of their removal.
· The Venkatachaliah Commission (2002) similarly recommended that ordinarily Governors should be allowed to complete their five year term. If they have to be removed before completion of their term, the central government should do so only after consultation with the Chief Minister.
· The Punchhi Commission (2010) suggested that the phrase “during the pleasure of the President” should be deleted from the Constitution, because a Governor should not be removed at the will of the central government; instead he or she should be removed only by a resolution of the state legislature.
