Table of Contents
Is immunity for the President and Governors absolute? | Explained
Premium
Does Article 361 grant absolution to the Governor even against criminal charges?
For representative purposes.
| Photo Credit: iStockphoto
The story so far: A three-judge Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud has impleaded the Union government and sought assistance from the Attorney General of India to decide if a “blanket” immunity granted under Article 361 to the President and Governors, while in office, from criminal proceedings undermines fairness, constitutional morality and violates fundamental rights to equal protection of the law and fair trial.
What is the case?
The question came up in a petition filed by a contractual woman employee with the Raj Bhavan who has accused West Bengal Governor C.V. Ananda Bose of sexual harassment and molestation.
The woman, identified as ‘XXX’ in Supreme Court records to protect her identity, said the “absolute immunity” given to the Governor is based on the victorian belief that the “King can do no wrong”. She said the police have treated her complaint against the constitutional authority in a “cavalier manner” citing the immunity clause. She said the only option left to her is to wait for the Governor to demit office for the investigation to commence on her complaint of gender violence. She, however, fears that the delay in the criminal investigation against such a powerful person may eventually deny her justice during trial. She has urged the court to mandate the State of West Bengal through its police machinery to carry out an investigation. The employee has also asked the court to frame guidelines and qualify the extent of the immunity.
Do Governors have immunity?
Article 361 (1) provides that the President and Governors are not answerable to any court for acts done in exercise and performance of their powers and duties.
However the first proviso to Article 361(1) allows the conduct of the President to be reviewed by any court, tribunal or body designated by either House of Parliament for the investigation of a charge under Article 61 (impeachment for violation of the Constitution). The second proviso to Article 361(1) holds that the immunity cannot stop a person from suing the Centre or State concerned.
The clause in question before the Supreme Court in the current case is clause (2) of Article 361 which mandates that “no criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the President, or the Governor of a State, in any court during his term of office”. The apex court has decided to interpret clause (2) of Article 361 to determine when exactly could criminal proceedings be instituted against a President or Governor. In short, the court has decided to rattle the protective cover of immunity to see if it is “unfettered or unbridled”.
Interestingly, the Constituent Assembly debates on Article 361 (Draft Article 302) in September 1949 show that a Member had indeed found the language of clause (2) vague. The discussion concerned the phrase “during the term of his office” in Article 361(2). The Member had queried if this would mean the President or a Governor could enjoy immunity by continuing in office despite committing a criminal act. The question was left open.
What are the arguments raised?
The petitioner argues that a bar on criminal proceedings under Article 361(2) does not extend to illegal acts or those which “strike at the roots” of a citizen’s fundamental rights. The alleged actions of Governor Bose infringed upon her right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, she submitted. The immunity under Article 361 cannot impair the police’s powers to investigate the offence or even name the perpetrator in the complaint/FIR. No part of the powers of the Governor provide for him to sexually abuse employees, the employee said.
The Supreme Court, in Rameshwar Prasad vs. Union of India, had interpreted that ‘civil immunity’ under Article 361(4) did not take away the power of citizens to challenge the actions of the President or Governors on the ground of ‘malafides’. An analogy could be drawn to interpret criminal immunity the same way. The petition referred to a Madhya Pradesh High Court ruling in Ram Naresh vs State of Madhya Pradesh, which had held that the immunity would not impair the police’s powers to investigate an offence, which included recording the Governor’s statement.
Read Comments
- Copy link
- Telegram
READ LATER
Remove
SEE ALL
PRINT
Related Topics
Text and Context
/
The Hindu Explains
/
laws
/
constitution