Karnataka Imbroglio: propriety of Governor’s decision

It is one of the fundamental postulates of the administration of criminal justice that anyone can set the criminal law into motion unless the statute enacting the offence makes a special provision to the contrary. Purity of public life is one of the cardinal principles which must be upheld as a matter of public policy. No man is above the law. The question for consideration is whether a Governor can act in his discretion and against the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in a matter of grant of sanction for prosecution of Chief Minister/Ministers for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and/or under the Indian Penal Code.
Under Article 163 of the Indian Constitution, normally the Governor acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers except in the cases where the Governor is by or under the Constitution required to exercise his function or any of them in his discretion. If any question arises whether any matter is or is not a matter as respects which the Governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his discretion, the decision of the Governor in his discretion shall be final, and the validity of anything done by the Governor shall not be called in question on the ground that he ought or ought not to have acted in his discretion.
It is against all canons of justice to make a man judge in his own cause. Sometimes bias is likely to operate in a subtle manner. Decision makers may not even be aware of the extent to which their opinion gets influenced. It is possible to contend that a Council of Ministers may not take a fair and impartial decision when his Chief Minister or other members of the Council face prosecution. Hence, when there is to be a prosecution of the Chief Minister, the Governor should, while determining whether sanction for such prosecution should be granted or not, as a matter of propriety, necessarily act in his own discretion and not on the advice of the Council of Ministers. For the interest of democratic Government and its functioning, the Governor must act in such a case on his own without being motivated by extraneous political considerations. Otherwise, he will become an instrument for serving the personal and selfish interests of some other person(s) and in turn, will be seen protecting his/her own vested interest.

Rejoinder to my comment entitled "Regulating Research" (January 14) apropos Ramesh Gupta's Article "Improving the quality of PhD research" (Jan 4)

THE TRIBUNE, NEW DELHI, 02.02.2011, P. 12
Research quality
The article “Improving the quality of PhD research” (Jan 4) by Ramesh Gupta and subsequent letters “Regulating research” by Rajender Goyal and “Quality of research is more vital’ by Sanjeev Trikha, caught my attention. If Indians really want to move forward in frontier areas not only of scientific research, but also of social sciences with new vision, the quality of PhD theses that students produce (its number is more than 8,500 per year in India) year-after-year under the so-called active guidance of their peers, they have to really be honest and sincere.
For the poor quality of PhD research, only the non-innovative, dishonest, lazy and greedy guide is responsible and not the student who is malleable and can be given any shape by a master craftsman.
RANBIR SINGH, New Delhi