Chief Ministers must be consulted for appointing or removing Governors, says DMK Rajya Sabha member

Chief Ministers must be consulted for appointing or removing Governors, says DMK Rajya Sabha member

Subject :Polity

Wilson brings Constitutional Amendment Bill as a private Bill in Upper House meant to clear certain grey areas in the Constitution regarding the powers of Governors, including the provisions of gubernatorial pleasure

Appointment and Removal of Governors

Context:  Rajya Sabha MP P. Wilson has brought a Constitutional Amendment Bill seeking to set guidelines regarding Governors.

Introduction:

• Member of the Rajya Sabha P. Wilson has brought a Constitutional Amendment Bill in Parliament as a private Bill seeking to set guidelines for the appointment and removal of Governors.
• The Bill is meant to clear certain grey areas in the Constitution regarding the powers of Governors.
• Wilson opined that the Centre should consult the respective Chief Ministers of a State before appointing a Governor.
• Recently, several states such as West Bengal, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Rajasthan, have raised concerns over the powers of the Governors.

Key Details of the bill:

• According to the bill, if a person has even been a Governor of a State, he or she shall be disqualified from becoming a member of either House of Parliament.
• It says that the Governor of a State shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal, after obtaining the concurrence of the Chief Minister of the State.
• It also adds that a Governor may be removed from office before the expiry of his term by the President on the recommendation of the Chief Minister.
• The Bill suggests amendments to Article 157 so that no person shall be eligible for appointment as Governor unless they are an eminent personality in some walk of life.
• The person shall be disqualified if they have attained the age of 75 years or have been in the employment of the Union or State governments or any local authority in the preceding 10 years.
• It also blocks a person who has served as a Minister in the Union, any State or Union Territory government, or a Member of Parliament or Assemblies, or judges in higher courts, or members of local governments in the preceding 10 years from becoming a Governor.
• It is proposed that this Bill prohibits people from serving as governors if they have held office in a registered or recognised political party within the previous ten years, have been accused by a court of a crime involving moral turpitude, have been found guilty of a crime punishable by a year in prison, or have been determined to be mentally unfit as determined by a competent court.

How can the Governor be Removed?

• Under Article 155 and 156 of the Constitution, a Governor is appointed by the President and holds office “during the pleasure of the President”.
  • If this pleasure is withdrawn before completion of the five-year term, the Governor has to step down.
• As the President works on the aid and advice of the Prime Minister and the council of ministers, in effect, the Governor can be appointed and removed by the central government.

What Happens in case of Disagreements between the States and Governor?

• Constitutional Provisions:
  • There are no provisions laid down in the Constitution for the manner in which the Governor and the state must engage publicly when there is a difference of opinion.
  • The management of differences has traditionally been guided by respect for each other’s boundaries.
• Rulings by the Courts:
  • Surya Narain Choudhary vs Union of India (1981): The Rajasthan High Court held that the pleasure of the President was not justiciable as the Governor had no security of tenure and can be removed at any time by the President withdrawing pleasure.
  • BP Singhal vs Union of India (2010): The Supreme Court elaborated on the pleasure doctrine. It upheld that “no limitations or restrictions are placed on the ‘at pleasure’ doctrine”, but that “does not dispense with the need for a cause for withdrawal of the pleasure”.
    • The Bench held that the court will presume that the President had “compelling and valid” reasons for the removal but if a sacked Governor comes to the court, the Centre will have to justify its decision.
• Recommendations by Various Commissions:
  • Over the years, several panels and commissions have recommended reforms in how Governors are appointed and how they function. However, they were never made into law by Parliament.
    • Sarkaria Commission (1988):
      • It recommended that Governors are not sacked before completing their five-year tenure, except in “rare and compelling” circumstances.
      • The procedure of removal must allow the Governors an opportunity to explain their conduct, and the central government must give fair consideration to such explanation.
      • It was further recommended that Governors should be informed of the grounds of their removal.
    • Venkatachaliah Commission (2002):
      • It recommended that ordinarily Governors should be allowed to complete their five-year term.
      • If they have to be removed before completion of their term, the central government should do so only after consultation with the Chief Minister.
    • The Punchhi Commission (2010):
      • It suggested the deletion of the phrase “during the pleasure of the President” from the Constitution, because a Governor should not be removed at the will of the central government.
        • Instead, he or she should be removed only by a resolution of the state legislature.