Supreme Court to Examine Governors’ Immunity from Criminal Prosecution

The Supreme Court of India on Friday agreed to scrutinize the constitutional provision granting governors blanket immunity from criminal prosecution. The bench, led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, sought the assistance of the Attorney General of India, R. Venkataramani, in a petition challenging the immunity of West Bengal Governor CV Ananda Bose.

The petition, filed by a former female employee of the West Bengal Raj Bhavan, contests the immunity claimed by Governor Bose concerning a molestation complaint she lodged against him. The petitioner contends that the immunity provided to governors under Article 361 of the Constitution does not preclude an investigation into criminal proceedings.

Petitioner’s Argument

During the hearing, the petitioner emphasized that while Article 361 grants immunity to the President and Governors from being answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of their powers and duties, it should not shield them from criminal investigation. The petitioner urged the court to establish specific guidelines to delineate the extent of immunity governors enjoy from criminal prosecution.

Article 361 Explained

Article 361 of the Indian Constitution provides extensive protections to the President and Governors. It states that they “shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties.” Furthermore, the provision explicitly prohibits initiating or continuing criminal proceedings against the President or a Governor during their term of office. It also bars any court from issuing processes for the arrest or imprisonment of the President or a Governor during their tenure.

MUST READ: Trainee IAS Officer Pooja Khedkar Opens Up After Panel Formed To Probe Her Candidature: ‘Will Follow Procedure’

Call for Guidelines

The petitioner’s plea for specific guidelines underscores the need for a nuanced approach to the immunity clause. The petitioner argues that while constitutional immunity is essential for the independent functioning of the highest offices, it should not serve as a blanket protection against criminal accountability.

Implications of the Case

This case has significant implications for the legal interpretation of Article 361 and the accountability of high-ranking constitutional officeholders. If the Supreme Court decides to amend or reinterpret the immunity clause, it could set a precedent for similar cases in the future and potentially increase the accountability of Governors and the President for actions taken during their tenure.