PTI - Tuesday, 1-25 pm
New Delhi, Jan 24: The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that Governor Buta Singh acted in undue haste in sending his report, which led to the dissolution of the Bihar Assembly.
A five-judge constitution bench, by a majority judgment of 3:2, said the full motive of the Governor was to prevent JD(U) from claiming stake for government formation in the state.
The court held that the Governor mislead the Union Council of Ministers by sending the report containing unascertained facts.
Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal, Justice B N Agarwal and Justice Ashok Bhan passed the majority judgment. Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice Arijit Passayat took the minority view.
The court said though the Governor is a main player, the Council of Ministers should have verified the report before accepting it as gospel truth.
The bench held that the Governor enjoyed complete immunity and is not answerable in exercise of constitutional power, but Article 361 does not take away from the court the power to deal with the validity of his action.
The bench said the report of the Governor contained fanciful assumptions, which could be destructive to democracy.
It further said that the provisions of the 10th schedule of the Constitution were not relevant at that time when the Governor had sent his report to the Centre. "That was fully an unconstitutional act."
The issue of defection has to be dealt with in accordance with the law as no such power is given to the Governor. The power in the 10th schedule lies with the Speaker and not with the Governor.
The bench said that the time has come to consider a national policy with common norms for appointment of Governor, which would be acceptable to all political parties. The court once again reiterated the recommendation of the Sarkaria Commission report regarding the appointment of Governors according to which only an eminent person free from political affiliation should be appointed to the constitutional post.
The Apex court said the action of the Governor in this case was drastic and extreme and the court could not be a silent spectator to such subversion of the Constitution.