Society & Lifestyle
|Analysis||Share This Page|
This Governor Won’t March!
|by Dr. Rajinder Puri|
Uttarakhand Governor Mr. Aziz Qureshi has petitioned the Supreme Court (SC) against his removal demanded by the Home Secretary. Article 156 of the Constitution states that the Governor holds his office during the pleasure of the President. Mr. Qureshi questioned how the government could remove him through a secretary’s order without the President’s formal approval. The Supreme Court has sought the government’s response to the petition within the next six weeks. One hopes the SC addresses this issue to settle the contradictions related to the subject once and for all. If that were done our understanding of the President’s role would also be revised.
The SC has passed flawed and contradictory judgments in the past. What is worse, there are glaring contradictions within the Constitution itself which render our democracy farcical.
In the Dr Raghulal Tilak case (1979) the SC ruled that the Governor in no manner can be “subordinate or subservient” to the Union cabinet. That would make the Governor accountable to the President who formally appoints him. Therefore the Governor obviously functions under orders of the President. Eminent jurist late Nani Palkhiwala relied on this ruling to dispute the dismissal of former Tamil Nadu Governor Prabhudas Patwari.
This ruling preceded the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution which made it mandatory for the President to follow the advice of the Cabinet. Originally Article 74 (1) stated:
This was wrongly interpreted by Pandit Nehru and accepted by the nation to mean that the President was bound by that advice. This interpretation of the text was nonsensical. That is why Indira Gandhi introduced the 42nd Amendment during the Emergency to specify in that same Article that the President would act “in accordance with such advice”. Yet the SC even before the 42nd Amendment ruled that the President was bound by that advice!
Despite Article 74(1) after the 42nd Amendment there still remains confusion about the President’s powers thanks to the negligence of our jurists. Article 53(1) of the Constitution states:
What should be believed and followed, Article 74(1) or Article 53(1)? The powers related to the President in both Articles are diametrically different. Yet this confusion continues to abound in the world’s longest and most frequently amended constitution. One hopes the SC addresses this issue in depth taking advantage of Governor Qureshi’s petition to end all confusion.
|More by : Dr. Rajinder Puri|
|Views: 667 Comments: 1|
Comments on this Article
09/12/2014 07:09 AM
|Top | Analysis|