Back
1981 Supreme(Raj) 112
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : M.L.Shrimal
SURYA NARAIN CHOUDHARY - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) - Respondent
Civil Writ Petn. 1308 Of 1981
Decided On : 08/28/1981
C.K.Garg, J.S.RASTOGI, Khetan, M.C.SURANA
The President of India has the power to terminate the term of a Governor at his pleasure under Article 156 (1) of the Constitution of India, and the Governor's five-year term is subject to the exercise of this pleasure.
Headnote:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - GOVERNOR - REMOVAL - PRESIDENTIAL PLEASURE - VALIDITY - ARTICLE 156 (1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - INTERPRETATION - GOVERNOR'S TERM OF OFFICE - MANDATORY OR SUBJECT TO PRESIDENTIAL PLEASURE - ARTICLE 156 (3) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - INTERPRETATION - WHETHER ARTICLE 156 (3) CONTROLS ARTICLE 156 (1) - GOVERNOR'S REMOVAL - WHETHER ARBITRARY OR MALICIOUS - BURDEN OF PROOF - ARTICLE 74 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - AMENDMENT - EFFECT ON ARTICLE 156 (1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - GOVERNOR'S APPOINTMENT AS ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE - VALIDITY - ARTICLE 158 (2) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - INTERPRETATION - WHETHER APPLICABLE TO GOVERNOR DISCHARGING FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNOR UNDER ARTICLE 160 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of the Janata Party, challenged the validity of the order of the President of India terminating the period of the office of Governor, held by Shri Raghukul Tilak, and claimed that Shri Tilak should be treated as Governor of Rajasthan up to May 11, 1982. The petitioner also sought a writ of quo warranto quashing the appointment of Shri K. D. Sharma, Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court, under Article 160 of the Constitution of India, directing him to discharge the functions of the Governor of Rajasthan. Additionally, the petitioner sought a declaration that Article 156 (1) of the Constitution is not subservient to Article 74 of the Constitution and, in the alternative, to declare Article 156 (1) of the Constitution to be ultra vires of Article 74 of the Constitution and invalid, unconstitutional, and violative of the basic features of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
1. The petitioner lacked the necessary specialized interest to vindicate in order to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The impugned order terminating the term of Shri Raghukul Tilak as Governor of Rajasthan was not arbitrary, capricious, or malicious, and the President of India had the power to terminate the term of the Governor at his pleasure under Article 156 (1) of the Constitution of India. 3. Article 156 (3) of the Constitution of India is subject to Article 156 (1), and the five-year term of the Governor is subject to the exercise of pleasure by the President. 4. The President of India is the best judge to decide when and in what circumstances the term of a sitting Governor of a State should be reduced or terminated. 5. The Governor is not an employee of the President or the Union Government and is a Constitutional functionary. 6. The President of India has the power to remove a Governor for corruption, bribery, violation of the Constitution, or any other legitimate ground, and it is unnecessary to burden the Constitution with all these details in express terms. 7. The appointment of Shri K. D. Sharma as Acting Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court was valid, and he did not suffer from the disqualification provided under Article 158 (2) of the Constitution of India because he was not termed as Governor.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had the necessary specialized interest to vindicate in order to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Whether the impugned order terminating the term of Shri Raghukul Tilak as Governor of Rajasthan was arbitrary, capricious, or malicious. 3. Whether Article 156 (3) of the Constitution of India controls Article 156 (1), and whether the five-year term of the Governor is mandatory or subject to the exercise of pleasure by the President. 4. Whether the President of India is the best judge to decide when and in what circumstances the term of a sitting Governor of a State should be reduced or terminated. 5. Whether the Governor is an employee of the President or the Union Government or a Constitutional functionary. 6. Whether the President of India has the power to remove a Governor for corruption, bribery, violation of the Constitution, or any other legitimate ground. 7. Whether the appointment of Shri K. D. Sharma as Acting Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court was valid, and whether he suffered from the disqualification provided under Article 158 (2) of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The petitioner lacked the necessary specialized interest to vindicate in order to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because he was not personally affected by the impugned order and had not suffered any legal wrong or injury. 2. The impugned order terminating the term of Shri Raghukul Tilak as Governor of Rajasthan was not arbitrary, capricious, or malicious because the President of India had the power to terminate the term of the Governor at his pleasure under Article 156 (1) of the Constitution of India, and there was no evidence to suggest that the President acted in a mala fide manner. 3. Article 156 (3) of the Constitution of India is subject to Article 156 (1), and the five-year term of the Governor is subject to the exercise of pleasure by the President. This interpretation is supported by the plain language of the Constitution and the debates in the Constituent Assembly. 4. The President of India is the best judge to decide when and in what circumstances the term of a sitting Governor of a State should be reduced or terminated because the President is the head of the Union and is responsible for ensuring that the Constitution is upheld and that the Government of India is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. 5. The Governor is not an employee of the President or the Union Government but is a Constitutional functionary who holds office during the pleasure of the President. The Governor is an integral part of the Legislature and has the power to reserve Bills for consideration by the President. The Governor also has a role to play in the appointment and dismissal of Ministers and in the reporting of situations where the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. 6. The President of India has the power to remove a Governor for corruption, bribery, violation of the Constitution, or any other legitimate ground because the Governor holds office during the pleasure of the President. This power is necessary to ensure that the Governor acts in accordance with the Constitution and the laws of the land. 7. The appointment of Shri K. D. Sharma as Acting Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court was valid, and he did not suffer from the disqualification provided under Article 158 (2) of the Constitution of India because he was not termed as Governor. The necessary corollary of that is that a stop-gap functionary need not possess necessary qualifications for being appointed as a governor, and also does not suffer from the disqualifications attached to that office.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed in limine.
M. L. SHRIMAL, J.
( 1 ) PETITIONER, Surya Narain Choudhary, by this writ petition has challenged the validity of the order of the President of India (Annexure-1, dt. Aug. 8, 1981), terminating the period of the office of Governor, held by Shri Raghukul Tilak and has claimed the following reliefs :--
(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to treat respondent No. 4 Shri Raghukul Tilak as Governor of Rajasthan up to May 11, 1982;
(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of quo warranto. quashing the appointment of Shri K. D. Sharma, Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court, under Article 160 of the Constitution of India, directing him to discharge the functions of the Governor of Rajasthan; and
(iii) to issue a writ, order or direction that Article 156 (1) of the Constn, is not subservient to Article 74 of the Constn. and in the alternative to declare Article 156 (1) of the Constn. to be ultra vires of Article 74 of the Constn. and invalid, unconstitutional and violative of the basic features of the Constitution.
( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that he was a member of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from June, 1977 to Feb. 17, 1980. He is an active member of the Janata Party and a well known political and social worker, who is keenly interested in the social, political and economic welfare of the State and the people of Rajasthan. He is dedicated to the principles, enshrined in the Constn. and it is his bounden duty to see that the provisions of the Constn. are faithfully implemented and that he being a voter it is his right to see that the House is summoned by a validly and lawfully appointed Governor and not by an illegal incumbent to the office. The petitioner maintains that Shri Raghuhul Tilak was appointed as Governor of Rajasthan on April 20,. 1977 during Janta Party regime. He entered the office of the Governor of Rajasthan on May 12, 1977; and his five years term will end on May 11, 1982. Under Article 156 (3) of the Constn. he could hold his office for a period of five years from the date on which he entered upon his office.
( 3 ) THE petitioner states that the President of India by an order, dt. Aug. 8, 1981. directed that Shri Raghukul Tilak "shall cease to hold the office of Governor of Rajasthan with immediate effect. " The provision of Article 156 (1) of the Constn. is subject to the provision of Article 156 (3) and the latter provision is to prevail over the former one and as such the premature termination of the period of Governorship of Shri Raghukul Tilak is not in accordance with the provisions and the spirit of " the Constn.
( 4 ) THE petitioner further avers that up to the year 1980 the provisions of Article 156 (3) were always treated as mandatory and all the Governors appointed to discharge the functions of that high office were allowed to hold office for a term of live years. It is only after the coming of the Congress (I) in power that a dangerous trend of terminating the term of Governors, before their scheduled term of five year is completed, has started. It has been done with a view to overawe the Governors so that they may toe the line of the Central Government. For the first time in 1977 the Congress Party lost the election, when Janata Government came into power, which was headed by Shri Morarji Desai. Thereafter, certain appointments on the posts of Governors, whose term was going to expire or expired in 1977. were made. The Governors of Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Maharashtra and West Bengal were appointed in the regime of Janata Government. The present Prime Minister has been consistently making efforts to "jase out the Janata Party Governors appointed in the year 1977 or later. According to the petitioner, Shri Prabhu Dass Patwari, the Governor of the State of Tamil Nadu. was dismissed: and thereafter, the Government at the Centre wanted to terminate the term of the Governor of West Bengal and wanted to appoi
