Governors can’t be sacked for disagreeing with centre, rules SC
08 May 2010
The Supreme Court has come down heavily on the practice of replacing governors in an ''arbitrary'' and ''capricious'' manner with every change of power at the centre.
A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan held on Friday that a governor could be replaced only under ''compelling'' circumstances or reasons such as for proven misconduct or other irregularities. The union government cannot remove a governor for not toeing its policies and ideologies, or for not following its diktat, the apex court ruled.
In case the removal was mala fide or irregular, the court said such a decision would be subject to judicial scrutiny and the court could seek the reasons and explanation behind the action.
The unanimous judgment, read by one of bench members, Justice R V Raveendran, has held that as the governor is appointed and remains in office at the president's pleasure, he or she cannot be removed merely because they are not ''in sync'' with the party forming the union government.
During the arguments, the centre had contended that a conflict of the governor's view with the national policy could invite his or her removal from office by cutting short the five-year tenure. It argued that the governors act as a bridge between the centre and state governments, and as such they cannot disagree with the union government.
The landmark decision came in a public interest litigation, filed in 2004 by then BJP member of parliament B P Singhal challenging the removal of the governors of Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana and Orissa by the previous UPA government.
