Source: The Hindu

Introduction

The were several incidents where Governors of opposition-ruled states were criticized. Recently, Kerala Governor faced controversy when, during a visit to Calicut University, he ordered the removal of posters critical of him. Labelling Students' Federation of India activists as "criminals," he accused the Chief Minister of backing them. Subsequently, he toured Kozhikode without prior notice, raising concerns about Governors' conduct in Opposition-ruled States, prompting a need to assess the legal implications of such actions.

Supreme Court on several occasions discussed the acts by governors. Several Commission also commented on the same.

What are the Major Cases of Immoral Acts by Governors?

• Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006):
  • SC held that in terms of Article 361 Governor enjoys complete immunity.
  • Governor is not answerable to any Court for exercise and performance of powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise of those powers and duties.
    • However, such immunity does not take away power of the Court to examine validity of the action including on the ground of mala fides.
• NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2018):
  • A SC Constitution Bench underscored the importance of discerning the "moral principles of the Constitution" through a concept of constitutional culture.
  • It highlighted that “constitutional morality imposes obligations and responsibilities on individuals holding constitutional positions and offices”.
• Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023):
  • SC said that it is for the Parliament in its wisdom to enact legislation or code to restrain, citizens in general and public functionaries, in particular, from making disparaging or vitriolic remarks against fellow citizens, having regard to the strict parameters of Article 19(2) and bearing in mind the freedom under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India.

What are the Major Commissions on Powers of the Governor?

• Sarkaria Commission (1988):
  • Commission said that “some Governors have failed to display the qualities of impartiality and sagacity expected of them”.
  • It further mentioned that “many Governors, looking forward to further office under the Union or an active role in politics after their tenure came to regard themselves as agents of the Union”.
• Puncchi Commission (2010):
  • It reported that to be able to discharge the constitutional obligations fairly and impartially, the Governor should not be burdened with positions and powers which are not envisaged by the Constitution.

Conclusion

In light of these cases and commissions, it is evident that the powers and conduct of Governors in opposition-ruled states warrant continuous scrutiny. Striking the right balance between constitutional immunity, moral principles, and impartiality is crucial to uphold the integrity of the Governor's office and maintain the trust of the public in the democratic process.