The petitioner claimed that as a matter of fact, the State governments of Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Kerala are also being disturbed through the appointed Governors at the behest of the Central government.
He stated that since there was no security of tenure for the Governor of the State, it was difficult for him to act impartially and independently in the discharge of his functions and exercise of his powers.
“Immunity, as guaranteed to the Governor under Article 361 of the Constitution of India, is not absolute and that actions of the Governor are subject to judicial scrutiny when challenged for arbitrariness, dishonesty, and bad faith.”
The Central government enjoyed the power to remove Governors of the different states, but was deliberately not acting to remove Jagdeep Dhankhar, a Senior Advocate, as their political interests were being served, it was stated.
Immunity under Article 361(1) would not be applicable in cases involving political tweets and comments in a partisan matter, since even though it is not a legislative function of the Governor, he is mandated to perform certain functions under the Act, it was contended.
“Any failure of the Governor to perform her duties under this provision is subject to judicial review by the Court, and any mala fide intent or wilful negligence would result in liability being placed on such officer, as provided for under Article 361(1). “Pleasure of the President” merely refers to this will and wish of the central government.”
Source: Barandbench
