'We Are Of The View That Such A Petition Cannot Be Maintained': Calcutta HC Reserves Judgment in PIL Seeking Removal Of WB Governor Jagdeep Dhankhar

The Calcutta High Court on Monday reserved judgment in the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition praying for a direction to the Central government to remove Jagdeep Dhankhar as the Governor of West Bengal, claiming that he was acting as the 'mouthpiece of the Bharatiya Janata Party'. 

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajrashi Bharadwaj orally observed, 

"We will consider and pass an order. Apparently we are of the view that such a petition cannot be maintained". 

The PIL has been filed by petitioner Rama Prasad Sarkar who is also a lawyer by profession. It may be noted that Dhankhar and West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee have clashed over a number of issues since he took charge as the Governor in July, 2019. The ruling party i.e. the Trinamool Congress has also been very vocal in its criticism of the Governor by claiming that several projects in the State were stuck due to the Governor's pending approval. 

The petitioner arguing in person prayed before the Court to issue a direction to the Union of India to respect the federalism of the State and not use the Governor as a political tool for petty interest against the elected State Government of West Bengal. 

During the hearing, the Chief Justice enquired from the petitioner, "Whether a writ petition can be maintained for a direction to remove the Governor?" In response, the petitioner submitted that he does not wish for a direction to remove the governor but instead prays for a direction upon the Union of India to respect federalism. 

The petitioner further averred that the immunity granted to the Governor under Article 361(1) of the Constitution would not be applicable in cases involving political tweets and comments in a partisan manner. 

At this point, the Chief Justice further remarked, "You have read Article 361(1) of the Constitution. Point out if a writ petition can be maintained against his (Governor's) functioning". The Chief Justice further questioned, "How do you cross the hurdle of Article 361(1) of the Constitution?"

The Bench also made it clear that reliance placed by the petitioner on the Supreme Court judgment in B.P Singhal v. Union of India would not stand as in that particular case a decision had already been taken to remove the Governor and subsequently a petition had been filed challenging such a decision. However, in the instant case, the petitioner was praying for a direction to remove the Governor of West Benga. 

Appearing for the Union of India, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta vehemently argued that none of the prayers of the petitioner should be entertained and that the petition should be dismissed with exemplar costs. He remarked further, "A lawyer filing this petition is unthinkable". 

The Solicitor General further submitted that this was a 'publicity interest litigation' filed without any understanding of the Constitution. He further submitted that such broad relief as claimed by the petitioner cannot be maintained. 

Referring to the prayer made for a directing the Union of India to 'respect federalism', the Solicitor General remarked that such payers are not worthy of consideration since they are extremely broad in nature. He also prayed before the Court to discourage such filing of PILs by imposing exemplary costs on the petitioner. 

Averments in the plea

Opining on the conduct of the Governor, the petitioner had averred, "The present Hon'ble Governor of West Bengal Mr. Jagdeep Dhankhar is acting as the mouthpiece of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). He is not only interfering in the functioning of the state of affairs but is also maligning the West Bengal government. This is unparalleled in the history of West Bengal's democracy."

It was further submitted that Dhankhar is destroying the dignity of the Governor's position by critically commenting on the State government at every opportunity. It was further alleged that he is bypassing the State council of ministers and is dictating directly to State officials which is violative of the Constitution.

"The Governor is also a formal head who is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Therefore, Mr. Jagdeeo Dhankar's observations about the functioning of the various ministries under the State government carry deeper political repercussions as they have the potential to affect the federal structure and amount to a misuse of political office", the plea had further averred.

The plea had further noted that federalism is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and thus the Governor cannot treat an elected State government as a 'second fiddle'. It was also contended that other States governments such as Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Kerala are equally disturbed by the conduct of the appointed Governors at the behest of the Central government.

It was further submitted that although the Central government has the power to remove Governors of different States, it is deliberately acting to not remove Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar as he is 'serving the political interest of the Central government.'

Case Title: Ramaprasad Sarkar v. Union of India