The Calcutta High Court on Friday dismissed a petition seeking the removal of West Bengal Governor Jagdeep Dhankhar on grounds that he was destroying the spirit of federalism.
A Bench of Chief Justice Pakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj dismissed the petition filed by lawyer Rama Prasad Sarkar on the grounds that the court, even with the limited scope of judicial review in the case, was not satisfied that the material placed along with the petition furnished any ground to entertain the plea.
“Examining the present case in the light of above pronouncements and limited scope of judicial review we find that the writ petition is based upon some tweets, one letter of the Governor and the publications made by one newspaper. We are not satisfied that the material placed along with the petition furnishing any ground to entertain the petition or to issue any such direction to respondent No. 1 as prayed in the petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed,” the order said.
The limited scope of the judicial review comes from Article 361 of the Constitution where protection has been extended to the Governor that he is not answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of his powers and duties.
SC orders
In the nine page order, the Bench cited several orders by the Supreme Court of India such as Rameshwar Prasad and others (VI) vs. Union of India and Another, (2006) where the apex court pointed out, “ The personal immunity under Article 361(1) is complete and, therefore, there is no question of the President or the Governor being made answerable to the Court in respect of even charges of mala fides.”
Also citing the case of B.P. Singhal vs. Union of India and Another (2010), where the decision of the President of India to remove the Governor was challenged, the order noted out that the top court, while considering the issue of correctness of the decision to remove the Governor under Article 156 of the Constitution, held that there is no need to assign reasons and that any removal as a consequence of withdrawal of the pleasure is assumed to be valid and is open to only “limited judicial review”.
During the proceedings, Y.J. Dastoor, Assistant Advocate General, appearing for the Union of India, asked for imposition of costs on the petitioner. But the Bench refused. The relations between Mr. Dhankhar and the Trinamool Congress government have been far from being cordial. Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has said that she had blocked the Governor on Twitter, alleging that he was interfering with governance and trying to influence government officers. In an attempt to break the ice between the two, Mr. Dhankhar on Thursday urged the Chief Minister to have a dialogue with him at the Raj Bhawan.
