Recall of Governor only in exceptional circumstances: SC

The judgment,one of the latest and an authoritative one defining the power of recall of a Governor,says that a gubernatorial post is not a livelihood job but an opportunity to serve the people.

The verdict was given on May 7,2010 by a bench headed by then Chief Justice of India KG Balakrishnan and also comprised the present Chief Justice of India SH Kapadia,Justices RV Raveendran,B Sudershan Reddy (now retired) and P Sathasivam.

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 society, Justice Raveendran,who wrote the judgment,observed.

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, it said.

The power (to recall) will have to be exercised in rare and exceptional circumstances for valid and compelling reasons, the judgment said.

Compelling reasons can be anything from physical/mental disability,corruption and behaviour unbecoming of a Governor,but the term,the court says,has wider amplitude and would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

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.

In the context of a Presidential removal of a Governor,the scope of judicial review is limited though potent,the bench said.

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.

The judgment was also meant to effectively clip the tendency of changing Governors immediately after a regime change at the Centre: 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.