New Delhi, August 21
The Supreme Court today asked the Narendra Modi government to respond within six weeks to a PIL filed by Uttarakhand Governor Aziz Qureshi pleading for a directive to the Centre to desist from threatening Governors to quit or face removal.

A Bench headed by Chief Justice RM Lodha also made it clear that the PIL would be heard by a Bench of five judges as it involved interpretation of constitutional provisions relating to the procedure for the removal of Governors.

In his petition, Qureshi took strong exception to the “threat” issued to him through Union Home Secretary Anil Goswami to resign or get removed. Pointing out that Governors held the constitutional office at the “pleasure of the President”, he said the pleasure “howsoever dependent on the advice of the Union Government is that of the President alone”. As such, any communication regarding the “pleasure of the President” must emanate from the office of the President, and the Home Secretary had no authority to dictate terms to a high constitutional functionary such as the Governor, he pleaded.

Appearing for Qureshi, senior advocate and former Union Law Minister Kapil Sibal said Governors could not be removed just because of the change of government at the Centre and without citing any “just cause”. Qureshi (74), who took over as Governor on May 15, 2012, said Goswami had called him on July 30 and August 5, 2014 asking him to tender his resignation failing which he would be removed from office.

The “threat’ had come in the wake of Qureshi’s reported remark that “even God can’t stop rapes in Uttar Pradesh”. As acting Governor of Uttar Pradesh, he had also given assent to a legislation granting minority status to the Mohammad Ali Jauhar University.

The PIL has come in the wake of recent replacement of several Governors, appointed during the Manmohan Singh government. Qureshi has also pleaded that such threats should be declared as “constitutionally perverse, legally untenable, arbitrary, capricious and malicious” and that the Home Secretary be reprimanded for giving such diktats to his “constitutionally superior” functionary.

He also sought a court directive to the government to “disclose at whose behest the impugned action was taken,” besides passing strictures against such conduct.

“Such action, if not proscribed, may jeopardise the entire constitutional scheme and the high office of the Governor of a state and have grave consequences for diverse areas of the Constitution such as federalism and Centre-state relations,” he contended. Besides the Centre, Qureshi has named Goswami and Uttarakhand as respondents in his petition.