Governor stays at Centre's pleasure, removal can't be challenged: A-G

NEW DELHI: The Centre on Thursday told the Supreme Court that a governor can be removed from office before his tenure ends, if his/her views comes in conflict with that of the Union government���s policy. Such removal was beyond the scope of judicial scrutiny, it said.

���If views of the governor comes in conflict with the national policy, it could be a ground for his removal,��� said attorney-general G E Vahanvati before a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, examining the issue of removal of governors with change of government at the Centre.

Mr Vahanvati said, governors act as a bridge between the Centre and the state governments and as such they cannot disagree on their own with views of the Centre.

Under the mandate of democracy, if a particular party is voted to power with a particular socio-economic agenda, governors cannot say they do not agree with it, said Vahanvati. At this stage, the bench asked, ���is the governor���s office a political or constitutional office.���

Mr Vahanvati responded it was a constitutional office and the governor stays in the office till the pleasure of the government on the same footing like the attorney-general or other law officers who can be removed if they lose the confidence and pleasure of the government.

The bench comprising Justice S H Kapadia, Justice R V Raveendran, Justice B Sudershan Reddy and Justice P Sathasivam, apart from the CJI, however, said, in a federal set up, the governor being the head of the state has to maintain a balance.

���The governor has to keep the interest of the state also in mind. He has the duty to reflect the interest of the state also,��� the bench observed. ���Sometimes, the Centre���s view runs counter to the state���s view. Will this invite the governor���s removal?��� asked the bench and went on to say ���there cannot be comparison between the governor and attorney-general or other law officers.���

Mr Vahanvati then said, removal of governor had to be supported by good reasons. ���It cannot be whimsical. It cannot be on sweet will. There has to be application of mind.���

Mr Vahanvati, who based his arguments on the ���doctrine of pleasure���, said governors enjoy office till the pleasure of the government under Article 156(3) of the Constitution. ���Under Article 156(3) it is apparent that a five-year term is subject to the exercise of pleasure by the President and he is the best judge for exercise of his pleasure,��� he said, while saying that removal of governor was outside judicial purview.

The court was hearing a PIL filed in 2004 by then BJP MP B P Singhal challenging the removal of governors of Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana and Orissa by the UPA government.