After the 16th Lok Sabha election, there has been some debate around powers of the central government to remove Governors. News reports have suggested that the central government is seeking resignations of Governors, who were appointed by the previous central government.
As Governor holds office at the “pleasure of the President”, Governor can be removed by the President directly.
Because of the lack of “impeachment” procedure of the Governor in the Constitution, removal of the Governor had been always contentious. After the demise of Indira Gandhi, no party was stable and Central Governments were zig zagging among parties (Congress-NonCongress-Congress-…). Governors appointed by the one government were removed by the subsequent Governments. In those circumstances, Supreme Court had directed that the removal of the governor can be challenged in the courts and the mere change of the central government cannot be the reason for the removal of the governor.
What does the Constitution say?
The Constitutional position on the removal of the Governor is that a Governor of a state is an appointee of the President, and he or she holds office “during the pleasure of the President” (Article 155 and 156). If the Governor continues to enjoy the pleasure of the President, s/he can have a normal term of five years. Now ,the President is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers under Article 74, so it is the central government which appoints or removes the Governor
The Supreme Court’s interpretation
In 2010, a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court interpreted these provisions and laid down some binding principles (B.P. Singhal v. Union of India). In this case, the newly elected central government had removed the Governors of Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana and Goa in July, 2004 after the 14th Lok Sabha election. When these removals were challenged, the Supreme Court held:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- A decision to remove a Governor can be challenged in a court of law. 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. 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.
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.
The above recommendations however were never made into law by Parliament. Therefore, they are not binding on the central government.
2,348 total views, 3 views today
भारत को बेहतर समझने और हमारी परम्पराओं को देश दुनिया तक पहचाने के हमारे इस प्रयास को प्रोत्साहित करें और हमारा छोटा सा सहयोग करें
अगर आपको यह लेख उपयोगी लगा तो अपने मित्रों के साथ सोशल मीडिया और WhatsApp पर शेयर कर हमारी सहायता करें
If you found the post useful please share it with your friends on social media and whatsapp