The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice to the Centre on a writ petition filed by Uttarkahand Governor Dr. Aziz Qureshi challenging the Union Home Secretary’s oral communication asking him to resign from the post.
A three-judge Bench of Chief Justice R.M. Lodha and Justices Kurian Joseph and Rohinton Nariman gave six weeks’ time to the Centre to respond to the petition.
The CJI, after hearing senior counsels and former Law Ministers Kapil Sibal and Salman Khurshid assailing the role of Home Secretary Anil Goswami, said since interpretation of Article 156 of the Constitution (relating to the Pleasure of the President in removal of a Governor) was involved, a five-judge Constitution Bench would hear the matter.
Mr. Sibal submitted that on July 30, the Home Secretary telephonically called the Governor and asked him to tender his resignation and intimated him that otherwise he would be removed from his office.
Mr. Sibal said the Governor, on August 2, handed over in person his detailed explanation to the President of India in a confidential communication and similar intimation was made to the Union Home Minister. On August 5, the Home Secretary again telephonically called the Governor and asked him to resign.
He argued that since the Governor held the office during the `pleasure’ of the President, the Home Secretary could not ask the Governor to resign. He made it clear that he was not seeking any interim relief but wanted the court to lay down the procedure for appointment of Governors and interpretation of Article 156 of the Constitution.
Initially, the CJI told Mr. Sibal that in a situation like this, the President or the Prime Minister could not directly convey the `displeasure’ and somebody should convey it and this had been done by the Home Secretary. However, Mr. Sibal maintained that the Home Secretary had no role to play and the court should decide what procedure should be adopted.
Dr. Qureshi, in his petition, said the Home Secretary had no legal authority asking him to resign. The conduct of the Home Secretary, if allowed to continue, would jeopardise the constitutional scheme, inasmuch as under the fear of sacking, the Centre could arm-twist the Governor regarding important functions of the Governor’s office.
He said the writ petition raised important questions of law, viz as to what should be the mode of communication regarding any aspect of `pleasure’ of the President under Article 156 of the constitution; can anyone except for the President’s Secretariat make any communication to the Governor of a State regarding withdrawal of `pleasure’; whether the Home Secretary’s action had the propensity to irreparably injure the federal structure and Centre-State relations and whether Mr. Goswami had acted with impropriety and breach of his official position.
He asserted that the Home Secretary’s action was illegal and not sanctioned by law. The court must ask the Home Secretary under whose instructions-- Home Minister/ Cabinet -- he made such phone calls. He said there was no question of the home Secretary putting the Governor to terms and attempt to extract a resignation under the fear of removal as such action was alien to the Constitutional ethos. “If Constitution prescribes the procedure of termination of a Governor, it cannot admit any other unexpressed mode”, he said.
Dr. Qureshi said “the `pleasure’ under Article 156 cannot be delegated. The `pleasure’ of the President, howsoever dependent on the advice of the Union Cabinet is that of the President alone. Any communication regarding `pleasure of the President must emanate from the President’s office.” Contending that Home Secretary’s action was a colourable exercise of power, he sought a direction for calling the records from the government and a declaration that the Governor of a State could not be removed without a just cause.
Published - August 21, 2014 08:10 pm IST
