Gubernatorial Office and Change of Government at the Centre

B.P. Singhal vs Union of India & Anr (WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.296 OF 2004) decided on May 7, 2010 by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India:

(i) Under Article 156(1), the Governor holds office during the pleasure of the President. Therefore, the President can remove the Governor from office  at any time without assigning any reason and without giving any opportunity to show cause.

(ii) Though no reason need be assigned for discontinuance of the pleasure resulting in removal, the power under Article 156(1) cannot be exercised in an arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner. The power will have to be exercised in rare and exceptional circumstances for valid and compelling reasons. THE COMPELLING REASONS ARE NOT RESTRICTED TO THOSE ENUMERATED BY THE PETITIONER (THAT IS PHYSICAL/MENTAL DISABILITY, CORRUPTION AND BEHAVIOUR UNBECOMING OF A GOVERNOR) BUT ARE OF A WIDER AMPLITUDE. What would be compelling reasons would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

 (iii) A GOVERNOR CANNOT BE REMOVED ON THE GROUND THAT HE IS OUT OF SYNC WITH THE POLICIES AND IDEOLOGIES OF THE UNION GOVERNMENT OR THE PARTY IN POWER AT THE CENTRE. NOR CAN HE BE REMOVED ON THE GROUND THAT THE UNION GOVERNMENT HAS LOST CONFIDENCE IN HIM. IT FOLLOWS THEREFORE THAT CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT AT CENTRE IS NOT A GROUND FOR REMOVAL OF GOVERNORS HOLDING OFFICE TO MAKE WAY FOR OTHERS FAVOURED BY THE NEW GOVERNMENT.

(iv) As there is no need to assign reasons, any removal as a consequence of withdrawal of the pleasure will be assumed to be valid and will be open to only a limited judicial review. If the aggrieved person is able to demonstrate prima facie that his removal was either arbitrary, malafide, capricious or whimsical, the court will call upon the Union Government to disclose to the court, the material upon which the President had taken the decision to withdraw the pleasure. If the Union Government does not disclose any reason, or if the reasons disclosed are found to be irrelevant, arbitrary, whimsical, or malafide, the court will interfere. However, the court will not interfere merely on the ground that a different view is possible or that the material or reasons are insufficient.

NOTE: The Supreme Court directions had come on a petition filed by Uttar Pradesh ex-DGP and the then BJP MP BP Singhal (Rajya Sabha 1998-2004) and brother of Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s Ashok Singhal.  BP Singhal had filed a PIL in 2004 challenging the removal of NDA appointed Governors of Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana and Orissa by the new UPA government. It would be interesting to see as to  whether the current regime will repeat the history of UPA or it will accord honour in letter and spirit to said judicial pronouncement of SC that came into being at the instance of an erstwhile BJP Member of Parliament impugning the action of the then UPA-1 Government????

Private School under RTI: CIC Rules

In a major boost to transparency in private schools, the Chief Information has ruled that private schools governed by laws like the Delhi Education Act will also be governed by provisions of the Right To Information Act, 2005. In the significant decision,Ms. Sadhana Dixit Vs. Directorate Of Education, the Central Information Commission (CIC) ruled that private schools cannot deny to provide information on service records and salaries.

The Appellant an ex-employee of Jindal Public School under the Directorate of Education hadfiled an RTI seeking a certified copy of service book, copies of her appointment letter issued by Jindal Public School and staff statements of all the employees. The Directorate of Education provided all the information available with them but the school did not share any of the information asked by the appellant on the grounds that the RTI Act did not apply to a private institution.

The Appellant preferred a second appeal before the Commission after she was unsatisfied with the information provided by the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Directorate. Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu directed the school to provide her with the information requisitioned under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and said that the school “has a duty under sections 4 and 8 of the Delhi Education Act 1973, to abide by the regulatory conditions of service, payment of salaries as prescribed, etc for which the school has to maintain the records, which provide an inherent and implied right to information to their employees”

The Commissioner also noted that, “Under Right to Education Act 2009 also, the recognized school is under an obligation to appoint eligible teachers and provide them with prescribed wages. This also reveals that it has given inherent Right to Information to the teachers from their employers.”The Commissioner then directed the school to furnish the information sought by the appellant under the lawto the Directorate of Education who in turn would provide it to the appellant.

This decision by the Information Commission will now ensure transparency in the service records of teachers and other staff among private schools governed by the Delhi Education Act.

(Source: Live Law)