Read Time: 07 minutes

The Calcutta High Court today dismissed a petition seeking removal of West Bengal Governor Jagdeep Dhankar. The petitioner had demanded the Governor to be unseated claiming that he is acting as the 'mouthpiece' of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

However, the bench of Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj stressed the limited scope of the Judicial review and junked the petition due to lack of satisfactory grounds. 

The bench pointed out that writ petition was merely based upon some tweets, one letter of the Governor, and news reports of one newspaper. Therefore, stating that "we are not satisfied that the material placed along with the petition," the court dismissed the plea. 

One Rama Prasad Mukherjee, a practicing advocate of the high court, had filed the instant plea seeking direction to the Union Government to explain the reason for not removing the Governor who as per his allegations is destroying the spirit of federalism.

Claiming that Governor Dhankar is a BJP mouthpiece for which reason he makes critical comments against the West Bengal Government, Mukherjee had alleged that this is against the spirit of federalism when it comes to Bengal. Therefore, he had argued that Dhankar is interfering in the functioning of state affairs and maligning the state government. 

"The Governor is bypassing the state council of ministers and dictating directly to state officials, which is violative of the Constitution," Mukherjee had alleged. 

In his petition he had also talked about a 'game plan' to impose President's rule under Article 356 based on a Governor's report, citing, ostensibly, "the failure of constitutional machinery in the state." 

His petition also stated that there is a widespread perception that Governors, being appointees of the Central government, act at their behest, categorized as being an ‘agent’ of the Centre or of the party in power at the Centre.

"As a matter of fact, not only West Bengal, but State Governments of Tamilnadu, Punjab, Kerala are also being disturbed through the appointed Governors at the behest of Union of India," his petition read. 

While dismissing Mukerjee's plea, the court observed that the Governor can not be made answerable to Court for his actions in furtherance of his duties and that Article 361 of the Constitution puts a bar on proceeding against the Governor.

The Court further noted that in the case of B.P. Singhal vs. Union of India and Another Supreme Court had noted that "judicial review is permissible when a case is made out on the ground of arbitrariness and malafides. Reasons, such as physical and mental incapacity, corruption and behaviour unbecoming of a Governor are the valid grounds for removal has been taken note of."

In view of the same, the court concluded, 

"Examining the present case in the light of above pronouncements and limited scope of judicial review 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."

Cause Title: Rama Prasad Sarkar vs Union of India