Fali Nariman, one of India's top lawyers and a Constitutional expert, told rediff.com that the Supreme Court has ignored what happened after Bihar Governor Buta Singh sent his report on a situation in the state that eventually prompted the central government to dissolve the assembly.
While indicting Buta Singh on Tuesday, the court said that he misled the Centre in recommending the dissolution of the state assembly and that the Union council of ministers should have cross-checked before accepting his recommendation.
In a five-judge bench, three judges severely indicted Buta Singh while the other two judges did not agree with their criticism.
Nariman argued, "In this case, one has to read the minority judgment also. They have clearly said that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the Governor."
He said that since it is a 3: 2 judgement, it is not ethically binding on the government and it should not feel the pressure as much as Buta Singh.
While citing the reason behind his argument, Nariman said, "The Supreme Court did not go far in its criticism of the government and the judgment is sharply divided. Also, it is not categorical in critising the central government. I don't see any need for the prime minister to resign," he said when asked about the opposition clamour for the prime minister's resignation.
The Left parties have said that the problem is not only about Governors from non-political backgrounds, as the majority judgement points out, but also about the latitude and scope of gubernatorial powers.
Nariman disagrees: "Not at all; the Governor needs wide powers and independence. In fact, I would strongly recomment that we elect our Governors and this will allow them to be impeached, if they falter."
"It is a matter of propriety for the individual whether to continue in office or not," Nariman said, when asked if Buta should quit the gubernatorial post.
Complete Coverage: The Bihar Polls
