The Hindu : National : Petition filed against removal of Governors

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Jul 06, 2004

National

National

Petition filed against removal of Governors

By Our Legal Correspondent

NEW DELHI, JULY 5. A former Bharatiya Janata Party Member of Parliament today filed a public interest litigation petition in the Supreme Court challenging the dismissal of the four Governors of Uttar Pradesh, Goa, Haryana and Gujarat by the United Progressive Alliance Government on July 2. The petition filed by B.P. Singhal, brother of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader, Ashok Singhal, is likely to be mentioned tomorrow for early hearing.

In his petition, he said the four Governors were dismissed by the President on the recommendations of the Council of Ministers of the Union Government, even as they had further period in office in their respective tenures. "The action is in utter violation of law, against the convention, settled norms and parliamentary practices of this greatest democracy of the world. This unceremonious dismissal of the Governors is highly undemocratic and arbitrary and reminiscent of the days when Emergency had been promulgated in this country in 1975." He said it was significant that none of the Governors was having any kind of complaint or allegation which could have warranted their dismissal. The Home Minister, Shivraj Patel, had gone on record to say that the ideology of the Governors should be the same as that of the Union Government. This, he said, was never envisaged in the Constitution nor was any such concept voiced during the Constituent Assembly debates when the subject of appointment of Governors was being debated.

The ostensible reason advanced by the Government was that the Governors were having affiliation with the Rashtriya Swayemsevak Sangh. It was pertinent to mention that not only the present Vice-President, but also the former Deputy Prime Minister, L.K. Advani, happened to be persons having affiliation with the RSS.

The dismissal was illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and the Union Government had done this purely for political reasons in order to enforce their political agenda. He said the issue needed examination by the Supreme Court, if not there was apprehension that the four State Governments would also be dismissed going by the past performance of the Congress appointed Governors.

Citing the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Bommai case, in which it was held that the onus would be on the Union of India to produce material/information on the basis of which the President confirmed his satisfaction (for dismissing the Government), the petitioner said the Centre might be directed to produce the entire files to the court on the basis of which President was satisfied before passing the dismissal order.

The petitioner said there were many instances in the past of the Congress Governments misusing the office of the Governor. In the interest of democracy and in the interest of the general public, the Supreme Court should define the term "pleasure" of the President under Article 156 (1) of the Constitution relating to the tenure of the Governor because if such type of dismissals were permitted then the provision of 156 (3) providing for a tenure of five years to a Governor would become wholly redundant.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National