Centre can’t remove governors arbitrarily

A governor is not an agent or employee of the Union government, nor is s/he expected to implement its policies. As such, s/he can’t be removed on the ground that s/he has lost the confidence of the president.

Restoring the high status granted to governors by the constitution, the Supreme Court (SC) ruled on Friday that they are not expected or required to implement the policies of the government and thus cannot be removed because they are “not in sync” with the ideologies of the ruling party at the Centre.

The landmark decision came on a PIL by BJP leader BP Singhal, who had moved court six years ago after the removal of Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana and Goa governors when the Congress-led UPA took over from the BJP-led NDA at the Centre.

The Congress had said the  governors were sacked because they were “for a long time associated with the Sangh Parivar”.

Upholding Singhal’s contention that the President should not have removed the governors on the advice of the Centre disregarding a constitutional provision that fixed their terms at five years, SC issued a slew of guidelines.

It held that under article 156(1), governors were appointed by the President and remained in office at the pleasure of the President and could be removed from office without assigning reasons and giving an opportunity to show cause. But this power can’t be exercised in an arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner. It can only be exercised in rare and exceptional circumstances for “valid” and “compelling” reasons.

The “compelling reasons” are not restricted to physical or mental disability, corruption and behaviour unbecoming of a governor. They would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, SC said.

Change in government at the Centre is not a ground for removal of governors.

As there is no need to assign reasons, any removal as a consequence of withdrawal of the pleasure of the President will be assumed to be valid and will be open to limited judicial review.

If the aggrieved person is able to demonstrate prima facie that his/her removal was arbitrary, mala fide, capricious or whimsical, the court can ask the Centre to disclose the material based on which the President took the decision to withdraw pleasure.
If the Centre does not disclose reasons, or if its reasons are found to be irrelevant, arbitrary, whimsical, or mala fide, the court will interfere.

Noting that this was an era of coalition governments, SC said there may be instances when a state is run by one coalition and the Centre by another. But a governor was immune to politics as s/he was expected to be apolitical and not expected to implement Centre’s policies, it said.