End of the Raj for Congress Governors?

The new BJP government has made its intentions clear about removing several high-profile governors appointed by the previous UPA dispensation. 

After the resignation of Uttar Pradesh Governor B. L. Joshi on Tuesday June 17,2014, at least 5 more Governors may have to go next.

Others who could be on their way out include K. Sankaranarayanan (Maharashtra), Kamla Beniwal (Gujarat), M. K. Narayanan (West Bengal) and Sheila Dikshit (Kerala)

Serving Governors appointed during UPA regime 

 

Name	State	Since
H.R. Bhardwaj	Karnataka	June 2009
Jagannath Pahadia	Haryana	July 2009
J.B. Patnaik	Assam	November 2009
Kamla Beniwal	Gujarat	November 2009
Shivraj Patil	Punjab	January 2010
Urmila Singh	Himachal Pradesh	January 2010
E.S.L. Narasimhan	Andhra Pradesh; Telangana (additional charge since June 2, 2014)	January 2010
K. Sankaranarayanan	Maharashtra	January 2010
Vakkom Purushothaman	Mizoram	August 2011
K. Rosaiah	Tamil Nadu	August 2011
Ram Naresh Yadav	Madhya Pradesh	August 2011
Syed Ahmed	Jharkhand	September 2011
B.V. Wanchoo	Goa	April 2012
Margaret Alva	Rajasthan	May 2012
Aziz Quereshi	Uttarakhand	May 2012
D.Y. Patil	Bihar	March 2013
N.N. Vohra	Jammu and Kashmir	April 2013
Nirbhay Sharma	Arunachal Pradesh	May 2013
Shriniwas Dadasaheb Patil	Sikkim	July 2013
V.K. Duggal	Manipur	December 2013
Sheila Dikshit	Kerala	March 2014

The shunting out could trigger a legal battle if any governor takes the legal recourse in view of the 2010 Supreme Court judgment that stated governors cannot be removed in a "whimsical and arbitrary" manner. 

Supreme Court ruling on removal of Governors

This is not the first time that a Governor appointed by the Centre has quit or has been asked to go after a change of government at the Centre. 

The situation is similar to that of 2004, when the UPA government was dragged to the Supreme Court by the NDA government for asking governors appointed by it to resign.

The SC had then ruled that governors could not be removed in an "arbitrary" manner.

Senior lawyer and constitutional expert KTS Tulsi  said: "In that case, in May 2010, the apex court ruled that though no reason needed to be assigned for discontinuance, the power under Article 156 (1) cannot be exercised in an arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner. 

The SC specifically said the power will have to be exercised in rare and exceptional circumstances for valid and compelling reasons." 

Senior lawyer and constitutional expert KTS Tulsi  said the court also emphasised that "a governor cannot be removed on the ground that he is out of sync with the policies and ideologies of the Union government or the party in power at the Centre. Nor can be removed on the ground that the Centre has lost confidence in him.

 It follows therefore that change in government at the Centre is not a ground for removal of governors holding office to make way for others favoured by the new government." 

The SC in the case (B.P. Singhal vs Union of India) also said:

 "If the aggrieved person is able to demonstrate prima facie that his removal was either arbitrary, malafide, capricious or whimsical, the court will call upon the Union government to disclose to the court, the material upon which the President had taken the decision to withdraw the pleasure.

 If the Centre does not disclose any reason, or if the reasons disclosed are found to be irrelevant, arbitrary, whimsical, or malafide, the court will interfere."