The Supreme Court of India on 07.05.2010 held that a Governor cannot be removed on the ground that he/ she is out of sync with the policies and ideologies of the Union government or the party in power at the Centre. Nor can he/ she be removed on the ground that the Union government has lost confidence in him/ her.
A five- judge Constitution Benchof the Supreme Court of India, comprising Chief Justice K. G. Balakrishnan and Justices S. H. Kapadia, R. V. Raveendran, B. Sudershan Reddy and P. Sathasivam was disposing of a petition filed by the former Member of Parliament, B. P. Singhal.
The Bench said that as a Governor was neither an employee nor agent of the Union government, it was rejecting the contention that a Governor could be removed if the Union government or the party in power lost ‘ confidence’ in him.
It held that a change in government at the Centre was not a ground for removal of Governors to make way for others favoured by the new government.
Writing the judgment, Justice Raveendran said, “ What Article 156 ( 1) of the Constitution [ under which a Governor holds office during the pleasure of the President] dispenses with is the need to assign reasons or the need to give notice, but the need to act fairly and reasonably cannot be dispensed with by Article 156( 1).”
The Bench said: “ The President, in exercising power under Article 156 ( 1), should act in a manner that is not arbitrary or unreasonable. In the event of challenge of withdrawal of the pleasure, the court will necessarily assume that it is for compelling reasons. Consequently, where the aggrieved person is not able to establish a prima facie instance of arbitrariness or mala fides in his removal, the court will refuse to interfere.
“ However, where a prima facie case of arbitrariness or mala fides is made out, the court can require the Union government to produce records/ material to satisfy itself that the withdrawal of pleasure was for good and compelling reasons. What constitutes good and compelling reasons would depend upon the facts of the case. Having regard to the nature of functions of the Governor in maintaining Centre- State relations, and the flexibility available to the government in such matters, it is needless to say that there will be no interference unless a very strong case is made out.”
The court said if the aggrieved person was able to demonstrate prima facie that his or her removal was arbitrary, mala fide, capricious or whimsical, it would call upon the Union government to disclose to it the material upon which the President took the decision to withdraw the pleasure.
If the government did not disclose any reason, or if the reasons disclosed were found to be irrelevant, arbitrary, whimsical, or mala fide, it would interfere in such a decision.
The Bench said: “ In the early days of Indian democracy, the same political party was in power both at the Centre and the States. The position has changed with passage of time. Now different political parties, some national and some regional, are in power in the States. Further one single party may not be in power either in the Centre or in the State. Different parties with distinct ideologies may constitute a front, to form a government.
“ On account of emergence of coalition politics, many regional parties have started sharing power in the Centre. Many a time there may not even be a common programme, manifesto or agenda among the parties sharing power. As a result, the agenda or ideology of a political party in power in the State may not be in sync with the agenda or ideology of the political parties in the ruling coalition at the Centre, or may not be in sync with the agenda or ideology of some of the political parties in the ruling coalition at the Centre, but may be in sync with some other political parties forming part of the ruling coalition at the Centre.
“ Further, the compulsions of coalition politics may require the parties sharing power to frequently change their policies and agendas. In such a scenario of myriad policies, ideologies, agendas in the shifting sands of political coalitions, there is no question of the Union government having Governors who are in sync with its mandate and policies. Governors are not expected or required to implement the policies of the government or popular mandates. Their constitutional role is clearly defined and bears very limited political overtones.
“ Reputed elder statesmen, able administrators and eminent personalities, with maturity and experience are expected to be appointed as Governors. 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.
“ 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. As the Governor is neither the employee nor the agent of the Union government, we also reject the contention that a Governor can be removed if the Union government or party in power loses ‘ confidence’ in him.”
The Bench noted that persons of calibre, experience, and distinction “ are chosen to fill these posts. Such persons are chosen not to enable them to earn their livelihood but to serve society. It is wrong to assume that such persons having been chosen on account of their stature, maturity and experience will be demoralised or be in constant fear of removal, unless there is security of tenure. The doctrine of pleasure is not a licence to act with unfettered discretion to act arbitrarily, whimsically, or capriciously.”
