BREAKING: Calcutta High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Removal Of WB Governor Jagdeep Dhankhar [Read Order]

The Calcutta High Court on Friday dismissed a PIL 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'.

Earlier, the Court had reserved judgment in the matter and had also observed orally, "We will consider and pass an order. Apparently we are of the view that such a petition cannot be maintained".

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajrashi Bharadwaj on Friday placed reliance on Article 361 of the Constitution which stipulates that a Governor cannot be made answerable to any Court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties. The Bench also referred to Article 156 of the Constitution which states that the Governor shall hold office during the pleasure of the President for a term of five years. 

Dismissing the PIL, the Court underscored that it is not satisfied with the material placed on record and thus ruled that there is no ground to issue any directions that have been prayed for.

"We find that the writ petition is based upon some tweets, one letter of the Governor and the publications made by one newspaper. We are not satisfied that the material placed along with the petition furnishing any ground to entertain the petition or to issue any such direction to the respondent No. 1 as prayed in the petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed", the Court ruled. 

The Bench however refused to impose any costs upon the petitioner. On the last date of hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Union of India had prayed before the Court to discourage such filing of PILs by imposing exemplary costs on the petitioner.

Accordingly, the Bench observed that pursuant to Article 361 of the Constitution, there is a complete bar on the issue of notice to the Governor in any Court proceeding. It was further opined that such immunity granted to the Governor can only be interfered with in a case where personal malafide has been proven.

Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Rameshwar Prasad and others (VI) v. Union of India and Another wherein the Apex Court had opined, "The personal immunity under Article 361(1) is complete and, therefore, there is no question of the President or the Governor being made answerable to the Court in respect of even charges of mala fides." 

The Bench further referred to the Supreme Court judgement in Nabam Rebia v. Registrar General, Guahati High Court and Ors and the Madras High Court judgment in M. Kannadasan v. Union of India rep. by Ministry of Home Affairs and Another to hold that no positive direction can be given to the Union of India for the removal of the Governor. 

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 by the President of India 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 Bengal.

"It has been clarified that such judicial review is permissible when a case is made out on the ground of arbitrariness and malafides. A consensus to the extent that a Governor can be removed only for valid reasons, and that physical and mental incapacity, corruption and behaviour unbecoming of a Governor are the valid grounds for removal has been taken note of", the Court opined further. 

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.

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

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 44

Click Here To Read/Download Order