Quo Warranto Against a Governor Requires Admissible Proof; Newspaper Reports Alone Are Insufficient Under Constitutional Immunity

A writ petition for quo warranto against a Governor could not be sustained where the only foundation was an unproved newspaper report. Such reports were treated as hearsay and secondary evidence, and the Court held that no judicial notice could be taken of their contents without independent admissible proof. As no material aliunde was produced to support the allegations, they could not be acted upon. The Court also reiterated that Article 361 of the Constitution affords the Governor constitutional immunity, which is not displaced merely by allegations of mala fides. On that material, the petition was held not maintainable and failed on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition seeking quo warranto against the Governor could be sustained on the basis of newspaper reports alone, and whether the Governor's constitutional immunity barred the proceeding.

Analysis: The sole foundation of the petition was a newspaper report. Newspaper reports, standing by themselves, were treated as hearsay and secondary evidence, and no judicial notice could be taken of the facts stated therein unless proved by admissible evidence aliunde. The petitioner produced no independent material to prove the allegations. The Court also reiterated that the Governor enjoys constitutional immunity under Article 361 of the Constitution of India, and that such protection is not displaced merely because mala fides are alleged. In the absence of legally admissible proof, the allegations could not be acted upon.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on the material placed before the Court and failed on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Allegations against a Governor cannot be sustained on the basis of unproved newspaper reports, since such reports are hearsay and inadmissible without independent proof, and Article 361 protects the Governor from being proceeded against on such unsubstantiated assertions.

---