Centre can`t change Governors to serve its own pleasure, rules SC

News posted by www.newsinfoline.com

The Centre cannot cut short, at will, the five-year tenure of a Governor to serve its own 'pleasure', a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled on Friday.Clipping the 'tendency' of changing Governors immediately after a regime change at the Centre, a five-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India KG Balakrishnan declared "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 (Governor) 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," the Bench also comprising Chief Justice of India-designate Justice SH Kapadia and Justices RV Raveendran, B Sudershan Reddy and P Sathasivam added.The Governors cannot serve their office under the fear that their tenure would any moment come to a halt if the new government at the Centre wishes so, the judgment written Justice RV Raveendran said."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 the 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. They know when they accept these offices that they will be holding the office during the pleasure of the President," the court said.The court was deciding on a batch of PILs filed by former MP BP Singhal challenging the removal of Governors in Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana and Orissa by the previous UPA government in 2004. Governors Vishnukant Shastri, Babu Parmanand, Kailashpati Mishra and Kidarnath Sahni were respectively dismissed from their gubernatorial posts by the new government.The court laid the law that since a Governor owes his office to the President under Article 156 (1) of the Constitution, only the "President can remove the Governor from office at any time without assigning any reason and without giving any opportunity to show cause".In the context of a Presidential removal of a Governor, the scope of judicial review is limited though potent, the Bench said.The Bench added that though no reason is due from the President, the power to recall a Governor should not be exercised in an 'arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner'."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 Bench said.

News posted by www.newsinfoline.com

Click here to read more news from www.newsinfoline.com
Please follow our blogs

newsinfolinephotogallery
prabugallery
newsinfolinephotogallery1

photogallery1