Removal of Governor

The Supreme Court on Friday held that "Doctrine of Pleasure" under which certain authorities hold office till s/he enjoys the confidence of the President or the Governor is not absolute and unrestricted and cannot be at the authority's sweet will, whim and fancy.

"It is of some relevance to note that the Doctrine of Pleasure in its absolute unrestricted application does not exist in India [ Images ]. The said doctrine is severely curtailed in the case of government employment," a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan said.

The court passed the order while curtailing the power of the Central government in removing Governors in the middle of five-year tenure without any valid reason.

The Bench held that the court can interfere if such actions have been taken arbitrarily and the government has to explain before it.

"... at pleasure doctrine enables the removal of a person holding office at the pleasure of an Authority, summarily, without any obligation to give any notice or hearing to the person removed, and without any obligation to assign any reasons or disclose any cause for the removal, or withdrawal of pleasure. The withdrawal of pleasure cannot

be at the sweet will, whim and fancy of the Authority, but can only be for valid reasons," the court said.

The bench held that power to remove them "will have to be exercised in rare and exceptional circumstances for valid and compelling reasons".

"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. Nor can he be removed on the ground that the Union Government has lost confidence in him."

"The doctrine of pleasure as originally envisaged in England [ Images ] was a prerogative power which was unfettered. It meant that the holder of an office under pleasure could be removed at any time, without notice, without assigning cause, and without there being a need for any cause. But where rule of law prevails, there is nothing like unfettered discretion or unaccountable action," the court said.

"When the Constitution of India provides that some offices will be held during the pleasure of the President, without any express limitations or restrictions, it should, however, necessarily be read as being subject to the fundamentals of constitutionalism," the court said.

I heartily welcome the Supreme Court's decision with reference to removal of governors.
For too long, the central government took it upon itself to ask for a governor's resignation or dismissed him if he did not resign when it found the governor held views which differed from them for dismissing elected governments.
If I remember this disease started with the dictator who declared Emergency, yes, Indira Gandhi. She liked to have only "Yes" men around her and changed governors , even Presidents who were not obsequious to her.
This idea was furthered by the Janta dal government in 1977 who made the governors resign en mass in the states where the congress had come second best.
Indira Gandhi replayed the same scene when the Janta dal lost in the subsequent election.
It has now become the practise when there is a change of guards in any state, the governor feels insecure.
We should have upright persons as governors, like Gopal Krishna Gandhi, who stood up to protect the people of the state against the injustice meted out by the CPM.
HATS OFF TO THE SUPREME COURT.