Governor: Not A Dancing Doll In The Hands Of Chief Minister!

Following the criticism of the Telangana High Court, the State government was left option- less and had to 'invite' the Governor Dr Tamilisai Soundararajan to deliver the inaugural address to the legislative assembly and council on the first day of the budget session. Thus, for the time being a sort of ceasefire in the most volatile situation of war of words between the Governor and the Chief Minister came into force.

Accordingly, the Governor Dr Tamilisai Soundararajan was formally invited by the State government and offered several floral bouquets by the Chief Minister and other dignitaries to her. In turn, the Governor also 'praised' the State government for several achievements which were not to the liking of the opposition parties such as the Congress and BJP. The BJP on the other hand, alleged that the Governor was coerced to read out the speech prepared by the state administration at the behest of the Chief Minister.

The tug of war between the Constitutional heads of the President of India appointed Governors and people elected Chief Ministers is not a new phenomenon. The history has been replete with bitter instances of confrontation between these two very important Constitutional functionaries. Be it the State of West Bengal, Tamilnadu or Rajasthan, the differences leading to the acrimonious debates over the 'supremacy' have been common, of late.

While it is true that under the Scheme of the Constitution, the Chief Ministers in the States and the Prime Minister at the Centre do represent the voters at large, however, at the same time our Constitution as it is today puts the offices of the President of India and Governors on higher pedestal than the elected representatives. According to Article 153 of the Constitution, "there shall be a Governor for each state. Provided that nothing in this Article shall prevent the appointment of the same person as Governor for two or more states." Again, Article 155 states that the Governor of the state shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal.

According to Article 163, the Council of Ministers is to aid and advise the Governor. Its clause No. 1 says, " there shall be a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister as the head to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions except in so far as he is by or under this Constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion." Again in clause No. 2, there is a specific provision that '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.' Clause 3 of the said Article also states that the question whether any, and if so what, advice was tendered by the Ministers to the Governor shall not be inquired into any court.

Therefore, the question of the Governor succumbing to any 'pressure' from the Chief Minister or other Ministers does not arise. It is high time that the Governors are 'educated' about their Constitutional powers and obligations before or after their appointments as such.

AFT ORDERS CAN BE REVIEWED BY HC: SC

Reiterating earlier Supreme Court's ruling in Bal Krishna Ram Vs. Union of India & another (2020) SCC 442 that high courts have the jurisdiction and powers of Judicial review against the orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), the full bench of Justices Manmohan, Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna held that the writ jurisdiction of high courts is not completely ousted by the law provided under sections 30 and 31 of the AFT Act, 2007.

DVC CAN BE FILED EVEN IF SPOUSE LIVES ABROAD: MADRAS HC

In a judicial order passed by the single bench of Justice. S M Subramaniam of the Madras High Court on January 31, it is held that any woman residing in India either temporarily or permanently may seek relief from a court of Law under the Domestic Violence Act, even if her spouse lives out of the country.

The Court observed that recognising decrees and orders passed by foreign courts remains an eternal dilemma in as much as, whenever called upon to do so, courts in this country are bound to determine the validity of such decrees and orders keeping in view the provisions of CPC.

Referring to an order granting custody of the children to the father, the High Court observed that forcible handing over of the children to their father would result in psychological disadvantages and minor children may not be in a position to have peaceful life in the absence of their mother.

·SC DISMISSES PIL ON ONE CANDIDATE, ONE SEAT

The apex court on February 2 dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by activist - advocate Ashwini Upadhyay challenging the validity of section 33(7) of the Representation of the People Act that allowed a candidate to contest for 2 seats in any general election. The Supreme Court held that it was for the parliament to decide on this issue.

It may be noted that prior to 1996, a candidate could contest from as many seats as he wished in a general election; but later by an amendment to the section 33 of RP Act the same was restricted to a maximum of two seats with effect from August 1, 1996.

TELANGANA FORMER CS GETS BAILABLE WARRANT

The Telangana High Court on February 2 issued a bailable warrant against former Chief Secretary of the State, Somesh Kumar thereby directing the police to ensure his presence before the court on the next date of hearing in a contempt case.

Justice M Sudheer Kumar passed this order after Somesh Kumar failed to comply with the direction of a single judge, in 2018, to the state, to either return the plot unlawfully retrieved from the petitioner or pay him compensation. When he failed to comply with this order, the petitioner filed the contempt petition against Somesh Kumar and the Court issued a Form 1 Notice directing him to be physically present in the Court on February 2. On his failure to comply with the Court's order, the court issued the bailable warrant.

FORMER LAW MINISTER SHANTI BHUSHAN NO MORE

Former Union Law Minister and Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court, Shanti Bhushan died on January 31. Bhushan who successfully fought the case of Raj Narain, who had contested against Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister overnight shot into fame after the favourable judgment holding Indira Gandhi guilty of corrupt electoral practices.

This judgment was followed by the imposition of infamous Emergency on June 25, 1975 by Indira Gandhi. Subsequently, after the Emergency was lifted in early January 1977, a congress-less opposition-combine called Janata Party came to power at the Centre in which Shanti Bhushan was inducted as Minister of Law and Justice. Of late, he came into limelight after he supported his lawyer-son, Prashant Bhushan on the issue of corruption among the highest Judiciary involving almost 50% of 16 successive former Chief Justices of India.