2004 (11) TMI 524 - SC - Indian Laws

Governor's Discretion Upheld in Sanctioning Prosecution

The court held that the Governor could act in his discretion in granting sanction for prosecution of Ministers, even against the advice of the Council of ... Governor acting in his discretion contrary to aid and advice of Council of Ministers - Sanction for prosecution of Ministers - Apparent bias / likelihood of bias - Doctrine of necessity - Writ review of irrationality and non-application of mind in executive decisionGovernor acting in his discretion contrary to aid and advice of Council of Ministers - Sanction for prosecution of Ministers - Writ review of irrationality and non-application of mind in executive decision - Validity of the Governor's grant of sanction to prosecute Ministers despite the Council of Ministers' refusal - HELD THAT: - The Court held that ordinarily the Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, but recognised established exceptions where the Governor may exercise his discretion. Where the Council of Ministers' collective decision is ex facie irrational, founded on non-consideration of relevant material or arbitrary application of mind, the Governor may, on the facts of the case, act in his own discretion and grant sanction. Applying these principles, the Court examined the detailed Lokayukta inquiry and report, and found that the Council of Ministers had refused sanction on a premise that no prima facie case of conspiracy existed despite material before the Lokayukta indicating otherwise. The Council's refusal was thus vitiated by manifest irrationality and non-application of mind. In such circumstances the Governor's contrary order granting sanction was not a prohibited appellate review but a valid exercise of discretion to uphold rule of law and prevent impunity. The High Court's decisions holding the Governor could not act contrary to ministerial advice were set aside and the Governor's order was directed to be given effect to so that prosecution may proceed.The Governor's sanction to prosecute the Ministers is valid; the Council of Ministers' refusal was ex facie irrational and set aside, and the Governor's order shall be given effect to.Apparent bias / likelihood of bias - Doctrine of necessity - Whether the doctrines of apparent bias or necessity justified the Governor's independent action in this case - HELD THAT: - The Court accepted that apparent or likely bias (real likelihood or real danger of bias) may be a ground permitting the Governor to act independently of ministerial advice; bias may operate subtly and need not be actual to vitiate decision-making. However, the Court held the doctrine of necessity did not apply to the facts. Here the Governor's exercise of discretion was justified not by invocation of necessity but because the Council's decision was irrational on the material before it and the Lokayukta's report provided sufficient grounds to show a prima facie case. The Court emphasised that mere apprehension of bias without material is insufficient; conversely, where surrounding circumstances demonstrate likely bias or manifest failure to apply mind, the Governor may act in his discretion.Apparent bias can in appropriate cases justify the Governor acting in his discretion; doctrine of necessity was not applicable here and did not underpin the Governor's action.Final Conclusion: Appeals allowed. The Single Judge and Division Bench orders are set aside; the Governor's sanction for prosecution is upheld and shall be given effect to, and the prosecution before the trial court shall proceed expeditiously. Issues Involved:1. Whether the Governor can act in his discretion and against the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in a matter of grant of sanction for prosecution of Ministers.2. Whether the doctrine of bias applies to the decision of the Council of Ministers in granting or refusing sanction for prosecution.3. Whether the Governor's decision to grant sanction for prosecution was valid in light of the Council of Ministers' refusal to do so.Detailed Analysis:1. Discretion of the Governor:The central issue was whether the Governor could act in his discretion against the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in granting sanction for prosecution of Ministers. Article 163 of the Constitution of India was examined, which generally requires the Governor to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in cases where he is required to act in his discretion. The judgment referred to the case of Samsher Singh vs. State of Punjab, which held that the Governor normally acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers but can act in his discretion in exceptional situations. The court also cited the case of Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, where it was held that the Governor could act independently in granting sanction for prosecution if there was a likelihood of bias in the Council of Ministers' decision.2. Doctrine of Bias:The court examined whether the doctrine of bias applied to the Council of Ministers' decision. It was argued that bias might be inherently present in the advice of the Council of Ministers when deciding on the prosecution of its members. The judgment referred to several cases, including A. K. Kraipak vs. Union of India and Kirti Deshmankar vs. Union of India, which discussed the subtle operation of bias and the reasonable likelihood of bias. The court concluded that in cases where there is apparent bias, the Governor could act in his discretion. The Division Bench's distinction that the principle of bias applied only to the Chief Minister and not to other Ministers was rejected.3. Validity of the Governor's Decision:The court evaluated the competing decisions of the Council of Ministers and the Governor. The Council of Ministers had refused to grant sanction on the ground of insufficient material, whereas the Governor, after considering the Lokayukta's detailed report, found sufficient grounds for prosecution. The judgment emphasized that the Lokayukta's report was comprehensive and based on substantial evidence. The court held that the Council of Ministers' decision was irrational and based on non-consideration of relevant factors, whereas the Governor's decision was reasonable and justified. The court noted that if the Governor could not act in his discretion in such cases, it would lead to a breakdown of the rule of law and allow high functionaries to evade prosecution.Conclusion:The appeals were allowed, and the decisions of the Single Judge and Division Bench were set aside. The Writ Petitions filed by the two Ministers were dismissed. The court directed that the Governor's order granting sanction for prosecution should be given effect, and the Council of Ministers' order refusing sanction should be set aside. The court requested the trial court to dispose of the case expeditiously.