New Delhi, Nov 07: A breakthrough in Maharashtra in unlikely to take place today. The BJP is likely to delay meeting the Governor and would instead wait for the Shiv Sena to respond.
The BJP was scheduled to meet the Governor today and stake a claim to form the government. On the other hand, the Shiv Sena has called for a meeting of its MLAs. On Wednesday, ministers of the BJP and Shiv Sena met for the first time after the results of the Maharashtra Assembly elections were declared.
Bhopal, Dec 12: An official appointment would be given only after the situation in Madhya Pradesh is made clear by the Election Commission of India, the Governor’s office said after the Congress sought an appointment in Madhya Pradesh.
The latest directive to the security forces from the Home Ministry makes it clear that Kashmir must be cleaned up. While the security forces have been given a free hand to clean up militancy in the Valley, it is important to note that the entire operation would be overseen by the Governor.
Will Rajiv Mehrishi replace N N Vohra as the next Governor of Jammu and Kashmir. With an all out offensive launched in Kashmir to crush militancy, the Government is looking for a person with expertise in the state.
Tamil Nadu has witnessed one crisis after another and each time the million-dollar question asked is why doesn’t such an important state have a full-time governor. C Vidyasagar Rao, who is the acting governor of the state also holds full charge of Maharashtra.
Appointing a governor is the discretion of the government and no one in the power corridors of the National Capital have been able to give a concrete explanation as why this treatment has been meted out to Tamil Nadu.
Shanmuganathan on Thursday resigned as the governor of Meghalaya following allegations of inappropriate behaviour. He was accused of hurting the decorum of the Raj Bhavan. The allegations came to light after nearly 100 employees of the Raj Bhavan in Shillong sent a five-page letter to the Prime Minister’s Office and the Rashtrapathi Bhavan. In the letter they accused the governor of turning the Raj Bhavan into a ‘Young Ladies Club.’
Amidst the row involving change of governors, it would be interesting to visit a landmark verdict of the Supreme Court which had in 2010 said governors cannot be removed just because there is a change of government at the centre. The landmark verdict of 2010 delivered by a Constitutional Bench headed by then Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan had laid down several guidelines when it came to this issue. The verdict stated that change of government is not aa reason to change or remove a governor. The government cannot be removed on the ground that the government has lost confidence in him or that he or she is out of sync with the ideology of the new government. The only way an order regarding a governor can be withdrawn is by withdrawing the President’s pleasure. Any order to this effect cannot be arbitrary or unreasonable the Bench had observed. The court further observed that such a power to withdraw the President’s pleasure shall be excercised only in exceptional circumstances and reasons ought to be compelling in nature. The Bench made it clear that the government cannot remove a governor as per its whims and fancies for various reasons. Firstly the governor is not an employee of the union government. He is not an agent of any party for him to act under the whims and fancies of a political party in power. A governor is a constitutional appointment and he needs to act in a fair manner and this is the reason why he is not under any government, the Bench said in its order. The court said that a governor’s term lasts up to five years and he or she will remain in that post until the President’s pleasure is enjoyed.
The court however observed that the President can remove a governor without assigning any reason and also without giving opportunity. In such matters courts would only have a limited power of review. However if a governor who has been removed feels aggrieved by such an order he could move the court and will need to prove that the order was illegal and arbitrary in nature. In such matters if the court is convinced that there is a case on hand, it would summon the union government and ask it to disclose before the court on what grounds such a decision has been taken by the president of India. The government will have to make available the material on the basis of which the President had decided to take such a decision. If the Government fails to provide such information, then the court will have to rule that the order was arbitrary, whimsical or malafide. Such a case would be heard only if the court is convinced of these facts.