Madras HC Dismisses Plea Seeking Tamil Nadu Governor's Removal [Read Judgment]

The Madras High Court, on Friday, held that a plea seeking removal of Governor is not maintainable.

The bench of Justice M. Sathyanarayanan and Justice R. Hemalatha observed thus while dismissing a petition filed by M.Kannadasan who had sought a direction to Central Government to remove Banwarilal Purohi from the post of Governor of State of Tamil Nadu for not passing orders on premature release applications filed by convicts in Rajiv Gandhi Murder Case.

The Council of Ministers had passed a resolution on 09.09.2018, recommending and advising the Governor of Tamil Nadu to order the premature release of 7 persons viz. 1) Nalini, 2) Suthedraraja @ Santhan, 3) Sriharan @ Murugan, 4) Robert Pyas, 5) Jayakumar, 6) Ravichandran and 7) Perarivalan. Despite lapse of nearly 15 months, the Governor of Tamil Nadu is yet to take a call and therefore, such inaction amounts to violation of the provisions of the Constitution., the petitioner, who is the President of "Kanchipuram District Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam", a non political organization, had contended.

The bench referred to B.P.Singhal v. Union of India and another [(2010) 6 SCC 331] and observed:

In the light of the well settled position of law, this Court is precluded from issuing any positive direction to the first respondent to take appropriate steps and place necessary materials before His Excellency, President of India for removal of the Governor of Tamil Nadu in the light of the observations made in Para Nos.81 of the judgment in B.P.Singhal case (cited supra), that "exercise of pleasure by the President under Article 156(1) of the Constitution of India should be on the advise of the Council of Ministers under Article 74(1)" and that apart, in the light of the observations made in Paras 82 and 83(iv) of the said judgment that "the decision for withdrawal of President's pleasure under Article 156(1) is open to judicial review but in a very limited extent and as there is no need to assign reasons, any removal as a consequence of withdrawal of pleasure will be assumed to be valid and will be open to only a limited judicial review". It was observed in para 83 that "the Court will not interfere merely on the ground that a different view is possible or that the material or reasons are insufficient" and therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

Click here to Read/Download Judgment