|
Sacking of governors or for that matter removal of any constitutional authority,
is a distasteful action. As such the dismissal of four governors belonging to
states of Haryana, U.P., Goa and Gujarat, all appointees of the NDA Government,
triggered a debate in 2004.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF SACKING:
The statements made by the then Union Minister of State for Home , Prakash
Jaiswal and the Congress Spokesperson Anand Sharma , suggested that the reason
for axing the four governors was their closeness to RSS . The Home Minister
Shivraj Patil explained that the UPA Government has taken action in states where
the incumbents had different ideologies and also where there is history of
trouble and that removing them was a precautionary measure.
Some legal experts opined that the Constitution provides for impeachment of the
President but no such provision exists for the removal of governors. Hence there
is no legal impediment for sacking a governor, whenever there is a change of
party in power at the Centre, particularly if the Government feels that such a
governor is not an independent person. A judgment in the case of Raghukul Tilak
(Rajasthan High Court) states that the presidential pleasure contemplated in
Article 156 of the Constitution can not be questioned under law. Also Article
156 does not require the disclosure of any reasons for the removal of the
governor.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE SACKING:
Normally the governors have tenure of five years though under Article 156(1),
they hold office during "pleasure" of the President. But this "pleasure"
doctrine can be exercised only if a Governor's conduct is improper or on the
grounds of corruption or violation of the Constitution. This power can not be
exercised arbitrarily .The framers of the Constitution provided for a fixed
tenure of five years for a governor, to ensure certain checks and balances. As
such it is nowhere contemplated that a governor should automatically resign
every time there is a change in the government.
If the UPA Government had substantive reasons to feel dissatisfied with the
manner in which the sacked governors were performing their constitutional
functions, it would have been appropriate to spell out those reasons, before
effecting the dismissals. A transparency rule must have been laid down for such
cases.
To avoid such kinds of controversies , the Sarkaria Commission had long back
recommended that a governor should be a "detached figure" , someone who has not
taken too great a part in politics generally and particularly in the recent
past. The governors' office essentially requires independence, integrity and
sobriety rooted in constitutional values.
You can send us your query now on
query@nrilegalservices.com or click on
Send a Query.
|