Kolkata: West Bengal Governor C.V. Ananda Bose throughout an interview with PTI, in Kolkata, on Saturday, April 6, 2024.
| Photo Credit: PTI
The story to this point: West Bengal Governor C.V. Ananda Bose on May 5 wrote to Raj Bhavan employees and requested them to disregard any communication from the Kolkata Police in reference to a sexual harassment complaint filed against him by a feminine Raj Bhavan worker. On May 2, the Governor additionally banned the entry of police personnel and Minister of State for Finance, Chandrima Bhattacharya, into the Raj Bhavan. As per the order, the West Bengal Minister’s entry was barred for “defamation and anti-constitutional media statements.”
The transfer got here a day after the Kolkata Police constituted an eight-member particular inquiry staff to look into the allegations of molestation towards the Governor. The staff headed by Deputy Commissioner (Central) Indira Mukherjee has sought CCTV footage and summoned a number of individuals working in Raj Bhavan.
In the letter to the Raj Bhavan employees, Mr. Bose identified that no criminal proceedings might be instituted towards a Governor throughout their time period of workplace. “Since the Governor has been granted constitutional immunity from any criminal proceedings being instituted or continued against him, it logically follows that the police cannot investigate/inquire into the matter in any manner whatsoever. To say that the inquiry/investigation of the police could continue even during the tenure of the Governor though no court can take cognisance of the final report, would be in derogation of the objective and essence of Art. 361 of the Constitution of India,” the assertion stipulated.
The growth has triggered outrage in the State’s political circles, with Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee reprimanding the Governor’s alleged actions. “The tears of the woman broke my heart,” Ms. Banerjee mentioned. The ruling get together — the Trinamool Congress— has additionally known as the incident “appalling and unthinkable.”
Constitutional privilege
Article 361 of the Constitution stipulates that the President, the Governor or the Rajpramukh of any State “shall not be 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 provision additionally envisages two essential sub-clauses — (1) No criminal proceedings in anyway shall be initiated or continued towards the President, or the Governor of a State, in any courtroom throughout the time period of his workplace. (2) No course of for the arrest or imprisonment of the President, or the Governor of a State, shall subject from any courtroom throughout his time period of workplace.
Past precedents
In 2009, Andhra Pradesh Governor N D Tiwari resigned on “health grounds” after allegations of his involvement in a intercourse scandal emerged. Similarly, in 2017, Meghalaya Governor V Shanmuganathan tendered his resignation after sexual harassment allegations had been levelled towards him. Nearly 100 Raj Bhavan employees had demanded his elimination for “seriously compromising” the dignity of the gubernatorial workplace.
Also Read: Meghalaya Governor V. Shanmuganathan resigns
No ‘life-long immunity’
The constitutional immunity granted to governors is, nonetheless, not lifelong and is proscribed solely to the Governor’s time period in workplace. In 2017, the Supreme Court revived the prices towards BJP leaders L Ok Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, and Uma Bharti in the criminal conspiracy case pertaining to the 1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid. It directed the Court of Sessions in Lucknow to border the further cost of criminal conspiracy towards them. However, the verdict barred the framing of prices towards former Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Kalyan Singh who was then serving as the Governor of Rajasthan.
“Mr. Kalyan Singh, being the Governor of Rajasthan, is entitled to immunity under Article 361 of the Constitution as long as he remains Governor of Rajasthan. The Court of Sessions will frame charges and move against him as soon as he ceases to be Governor,” the high Court mentioned. Soon after Mr. Singh’s time period ended, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in February 2022 moved the classes courtroom in Lucknow to summon him to face trial in the case.
In 2016, days after ordering Arunachal Pradesh Governor J.P. Rajkhowa to reply as to why he really useful President’s rule in the delicate border State, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court recalled the order saying that it made a “mistake” by not realising that Governors have “complete immunity” and usually are not answerable to Courts for acts finished of their official capability. The discover had been issued on a petition by Rajesh Tacho, chief whip of the Congress Legislature Party, contending that the Governor and the Centre “played [a] fraud on the Constitution” by imposing the President’s rule.
‘Absolute immunity’ towards criminal proceedings
In 2015, the Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed the FIR registered towards Madhya Pradesh Governor late Ram Naresh Yadav for his alleged involvement in the Vyapam rip-off on the floor that he loved ‘absolute immunity’ towards criminal prosecution. The Court held that the expression “whatsoever” following the expression “criminal proceedings” in clause (2) of Article 361 would come with inside its ambit an FIR. Per contra, the State authorities argued that an FIR is registered by the police officer and, due to this fact, isn’t a criminal continuing instituted earlier than the Court inside the which means of Article 361 (2) of the Constitution.
The High Court reasoned that such immunity is granted to insulate “the Head of a State from any possible exposure to malicious publicity of his involvement in any offence instituted during his term of office.” At the similar time, it clarified that such immunity won’t impair the police’s powers to research the offence together with the recording of the Governor’s assertion. “….the immunity in Article 361 (2) or 361 (3) does not extend to recording of statement of the Head of a State by the police in connection with investigation of a crime, if it is so essential. The police, however, must take all salutary precautions and observe circumspection while recording statement of the petitioner in the course of investigation, so that the majesty of the office of the Governor of the State is not undermined in any manner,” the verdict underscored.
Soon after, a Supreme Court Bench headed by former Chief Justice of India (CJI) H.L. Dattu agreed to listen to a batch of petitions looking for Mr. Yadav’s elimination in addition to formulation of tips for the elimination of Governors if they’re discovered to be concerned in corrupt practices whereas being in workplace.
Also Read:Vyapam scam: SC notice to Centre, MP Governor on plea for his removal
No bar on judicial evaluation
The Supreme Court in Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006), whereas deliberating upon the legality of the Governor recommending Presidential rule in Bihar, underscored that the private immunity assured below Article 361 of the Constitution extends to the train and efficiency of all or any powers and duties by him. It added that such immunity additionally extends to circumstances the place “allegations of personal mala-fides” have been made towards the Governor.
However, the Court added an essential caveat — such gubernatorial immunity doesn’t indicate that the actions of the Governor are past the ambit of judicial evaluation. “..Such immunity does not take away power of the Court to examine validity of the action including on the ground of mala fides,” it asserted.
The verdict additional clarified {that a} authorities supporting the actions of the Governor is permitted to defend him earlier than a judicial discussion board by referring to the materials on file or submitting an affidavit. However, whether or not Governors can declare immunity for extra-constitutional gestures was not a difficulty of concern in the case.
Reiterating this, the apex Court in Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix v. Dy. Speaker (2016) ruled that the discretionary powers of the Governor are amenable to judicial evaluation.