The power (to recall) will have to be exercised in rare and exceptional circumstances for valid and compelling reasons,” the judgment said.
.
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”.
But as a rider, 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.
.
“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.”
.
The judgment was based on a batch of public interest petitions 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.
.
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”.
But as a rider, 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.
.
“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.”
.
The judgment was based on a batch of public interest petitions 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment