The Calcutta High Court on Friday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the removal of West Bengal Governor Jagdeep Dhankhar [Rama Prasad Sarkar v. Union of India]..The petition filed by lawyer Ram Prasad Sarkar claiming that the Governor was a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and was acting as its mouthpiece was heard and decided by a Division Bench of Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj..In a nutshell- The petition stated that the Governor was interfering in the functioning of the state of affairs and maligning the West Bengal government;- The plea also stated that Dhankhar was habitual of ignoring the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and preached on all matters ranging from law and order to health to education;- Further, it was the petitioner's stand that Dhankhar directly dictated State officials, which was violative of the Constitution;- The petition expressed concerns that not only in West Bengal, but State governments of Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Kerala were being disturbed through the appointed Governors at the behest of the Central government..The petitioner claimed that the State government could be dismissed under Article 365 of the Constitution based on the Governor's report, citing "the failure of constitutional machinery in the State," and alluded to a "game plan" being chalked out to this end."The Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in the exercise of executive powers and ordinance-making powers. Moreover, as the Governor is bound by this advice, the Governor ought not to perform any executive functions in a personal capacity," the plea stated.Further, he stated that Dhankhar’s observations about the functioning of the various ministries under the State government carry deeper political repercussions as they had the potential to affect the federal structure and amount to a misuse of political office."Federalism is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. This fundamental feature of the Constitution ought not to be ignored. Therefore, the Governor cannot treat an elected state government as a second fiddle. The longer Mr. Dhankar stays as Governor, there is a chance of the situation going from bad to worse, in which the Governor himself is a party.".The petitioner claimed that as a matter of fact, the State governments of Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Kerala are also being disturbed through the appointed Governors at the behest of the Central government.He stated that since there was no security of tenure for the Governor of the State, it was difficult for him to act impartially and independently in the discharge of his functions and exercise of his powers."Immunity, as guaranteed to the Governor under Article 361 of the Constitution of India, is not absolute and that actions of the Governor are subject to judicial scrutiny when challenged for arbitrariness, dishonesty, and bad faith."The Central government enjoyed the power to remove Governors of the different states, but was deliberately not acting to remove Jagdeep Dhankhar, a Senior Advocate, as their political interests were being served, it was stated. Immunity under Article 361(1) would not be applicable in cases involving political tweets and comments in a partisan matter, since even though it is not a legislative function of the Governor, he is mandated to perform certain functions under the Act, it was contended."Any failure of the Governor to perform her duties under this provision is subject to judicial review by the Court, and any mala fide intent or wilful negligence would result in liability being placed on such officer, as provided for under Article 361(1). “Pleasure of the President” merely refers to this will and wish of the central government.".Sarkar claimed that he wrote to the Centre and the President requesting the removal of Dhankhar, yet no steps have been taken even as the situation has gone from bad to worse..Governor can become a “convenient punching bag” in the crossfire between political parties: Jagdeep Dhankhar, Governor of West Bengal
The Calcutta High Court on Friday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the removal of West Bengal Governor Jagdeep Dhankhar [Rama Prasad Sarkar v. Union of India]..The petition filed by lawyer Ram Prasad Sarkar claiming that the Governor was a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and was acting as its mouthpiece was heard and decided by a Division Bench of Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj..In a nutshell- The petition stated that the Governor was interfering in the functioning of the state of affairs and maligning the West Bengal government;- The plea also stated that Dhankhar was habitual of ignoring the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and preached on all matters ranging from law and order to health to education;- Further, it was the petitioner's stand that Dhankhar directly dictated State officials, which was violative of the Constitution;- The petition expressed concerns that not only in West Bengal, but State governments of Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Kerala were being disturbed through the appointed Governors at the behest of the Central government..The petitioner claimed that the State government could be dismissed under Article 365 of the Constitution based on the Governor's report, citing "the failure of constitutional machinery in the State," and alluded to a "game plan" being chalked out to this end."The Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in the exercise of executive powers and ordinance-making powers. Moreover, as the Governor is bound by this advice, the Governor ought not to perform any executive functions in a personal capacity," the plea stated.Further, he stated that Dhankhar’s observations about the functioning of the various ministries under the State government carry deeper political repercussions as they had the potential to affect the federal structure and amount to a misuse of political office."Federalism is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. This fundamental feature of the Constitution ought not to be ignored. Therefore, the Governor cannot treat an elected state government as a second fiddle. The longer Mr. Dhankar stays as Governor, there is a chance of the situation going from bad to worse, in which the Governor himself is a party.".The petitioner claimed that as a matter of fact, the State governments of Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Kerala are also being disturbed through the appointed Governors at the behest of the Central government.He stated that since there was no security of tenure for the Governor of the State, it was difficult for him to act impartially and independently in the discharge of his functions and exercise of his powers."Immunity, as guaranteed to the Governor under Article 361 of the Constitution of India, is not absolute and that actions of the Governor are subject to judicial scrutiny when challenged for arbitrariness, dishonesty, and bad faith."The Central government enjoyed the power to remove Governors of the different states, but was deliberately not acting to remove Jagdeep Dhankhar, a Senior Advocate, as their political interests were being served, it was stated. Immunity under Article 361(1) would not be applicable in cases involving political tweets and comments in a partisan matter, since even though it is not a legislative function of the Governor, he is mandated to perform certain functions under the Act, it was contended."Any failure of the Governor to perform her duties under this provision is subject to judicial review by the Court, and any mala fide intent or wilful negligence would result in liability being placed on such officer, as provided for under Article 361(1). “Pleasure of the President” merely refers to this will and wish of the central government.".Sarkar claimed that he wrote to the Centre and the President requesting the removal of Dhankhar, yet no steps have been taken even as the situation has gone from bad to worse..Governor can become a “convenient punching bag” in the crossfire between political parties: Jagdeep Dhankhar, Governor of West Bengal