We all know that the Congress has always posted its tired, retired or failed politicians as Governors and ensured that they remain the eyes of ears of its Union Government. Why should such people continueIJ
Spokespersons of the Congress are crying foul over the Modi Government’s decision to nudge some Governors to put in their papers. Thus far, reports indicate that only two Governors — Mr Bl Joshi and Mr Shekhar Dutt —have had honourably quit following the Congress’s debacle in the lok Sabha election.
All others, including hardcore Congress politicians like Ms Sheila Dikshit and Mr JB Patnaik are clinging on to their gubernatorial positions. The conduct of these politician-Governors betrays absolute gracelessness. Despite the tectonic political change that has come about at the federal level, some Governors are proving to be stubborn. They hang on to their governorships, thus compelling the Union Government to signal its mind. The Maharastra Governor wants a communication from “an appropriate decision-making authority”, for him to consider quitting the Raj Bhavan in Mumbai.
The conduct of Ms Dikshit is indeed inexplicable. She was the Chief Minister of Delhi for 15 years and led the Congress to its biggest rout in the State Assembly election last December. Thereafter, the UPA Government gifted her with a governorship, before it was sent packing in the lok Sabha poll. It is, therefore, strange to see a politician of such long-standing raising technicalities and digging in her heels.
The Congress’s protests on this count are untenable because the UPA Government had dismissed the Governors of Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana and Goa on July 2, 2004, without assigning any reason. Following their dismissal, Mr BP Singhal moved a public interest litigation in the Supreme Court questioning the Government’s decision. A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by the then Chief Justice, Mr KG Balakrishnan, delivered its judgement on May 7, 2010, and partially upheld the contention of the petitioner.
Significantly, the court held that under Article 156(1) of the Constitution, the Governor holds office during the pleasure of the President. “Therefore, the President can remove the Governor from office at any time without assigning any reason and without giving any opportunity to show cause”. Also,
“as there is no need to assign reasons, any removal as a consequence of withdrawal of the pleasure will be assumed to be valid and will be open to only a limited judicial review”. However, it said the President cannot exercise his power in an arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner.
It also declared that “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…It follows, therefore, that change in Government at Centre is not a ground for removal of Governors…”
In other words, while it is true that the court has said that change of Government at the Centre cannot be reason for removal of a Governor, it has unambiguously declared that a Governor holds office at the pleasure of the President and that he can be removed “without assigning any reason and without giving an opportunity to show cause”.
The stand taken by the Congress now is at gross variance with the affidavit filed by the Manmohan Singh Government in this case. In that affidavit, that Government claimed that the power of the President to remove a Governor was “absolute and unfettered” and that the term of five years provided in the Constitution was subject to the doctrine of pleasure contained in Article 156(1). It also claimed that the removal of a Governor was not justiciable. The judgement records that the Attorney General later ‘shifted’ his stand on this issue and said that the President’s power “is not a licence to act arbitrarily, whimsically or capriciously”.
However, the Attorney General was honest enough to admit that there was a political aspect to the removal of Governors. In para 8 of the judgement, the court said the Attorney General submitted that in a democracy, political parties are formed on shared beliefs and they contest election with a declared agenda. “If a party which comes to power with a particular social and economic agenda, finds that a Governor is out of sync with its policies, then it should be able to remove such a Governor”.
The judgement further recorded that “the learned Attorney General was categorical in his submission that the Union Government will have the right to remove a Governor without attributing any fault to him, if the President loses confidence in a Governor or finds that the Governor is out of sync with democratic and electoral mandate”.
Given these facts, it was strange to hear Ms Indira Jaising, who was appointed Additional Solicitor General by the UPA Government and who assisted the Attorney General in this case, claim on Rajya Sabha TV the other day that the court’s view that 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, was “the only operative part of the judgement” and that “there is nothing else in this judgement”. This amounts to selective reading of the judgement, because she conveniently ignored the first paragraph in the court’s summary of its conclusions which reads as follows: “Under Article 156(1), the Governor holds office during the pleasure of the President. Therefore, the President can remove the Governor from office at any time without assigning any reason and without giving any opportunity to show cause.” Significantly, Ms Jaising conveniently ignored other inconvenient truths — the contents of the Government’s affidavit and the arguments of the Attorney General — which are recorded by the court.
Second, Ms Jaising claimed that it was “unconstitutional” to nudge Governors out of office. “If the President wishes to remove them, there will have to be a reasoned order…President will have to give reasons…The stand taken by the Governors is correct. let them (the Government) say it in writing. Governors said they will not act on the basis of rumours. They have received nothing in writing”. This again runs contrary to the judgement which says “the President can remove the Governor from office at any time without assigning any reason and without giving any opportunity to show cause”.
We all know that the Congress has always posted its tired, retired or failed politicians as Governors and ensured that they remain the eyes of ears of the Union Government. Therefore, post-May 16, is it unreasonable to expect that Governors enjoy the confidence of those who run the Union Government todayIJ They have to be the eyes and ears of North Block, not the eyes and ears of 10, Janpath. The Congress-Governors must go.