The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Centre whether a tainted Governor should continue to hold office after a PIl sought the removal of Madhya Pradesh Governor Ram Naresh Yadav who is accused of criminal conspiracy in the Vyapam scam.
The Governor enjoys immunity under Constitution Article 361(2) against facing any criminal proceeding during the term of his office. It was this provision that came to the rescue of Yadav, who got the FIR against him quashed by the MP High Court on May 5, 2015.
Challenging this order as well as raising a broader issue of public interest, a group of five lawyers from Madhya Pradesh asked the bench of Chief Justice Hl Dattu, Justices SK Singh and Amitava Roy whether it was right for a Governor facing serious allegations of corruption and misconduct to continue in his post which entails serious executive, legislative and judicial functions. Appearing for the petitioners, senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Vivek Tankha sought guidelines to be framed in such cases where a serving Governor could be removed by the President for acts of corruption or moral turpitude or behavior unbecoming of a Governor.
The bench gave time to Centre through Ministry of Home Affairs, State of Madhya Pradesh, and Yadav to file their response to the PIl. Yadav, who became Governor of MP in August 2011, was named in the FIR filed by the Special Task Force of MP Police in the Vyapam Scam on February 24, 2015. The allegation against Yadav is that as Governor he recommended names of five candidates to facilitate their selection on the post of Forest Guards by resorting to unfair means in the examination conducted by Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board (Vyapam).
The petition raised disturbing questions that if the Governor can approach Court against his illegal removal by the Centre, there must be remedy available for removal of tainted Governors from the post if Government fails to recommend their removal. Since the Governor holds office till the pleasure of the President and is immune from criminal prosecution, the petition also was of the view that immunity under Constitution extends to the office and not necessarily to the person occupying the post.