1994 (3) TMI 405 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Authority of the Governor of Tamil Nadu.
2. Allegations of mala fide actions by the Governor.
3. Admissibility of newspaper reports as evidence.
4. Immunity of the Governor under Article 361 of the Constitution of India.
5. Locus standi of the petitioner.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Authority of the Governor of Tamil Nadu:
The petitioner sought a writ of quo warranto questioning the authority under which the respondent held the office of the Governor of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner alleged that the Governor was delaying approvals and assents to laws passed by the Legislature, making speeches that created apprehensions about dismissing the Government, and acting with political bias towards the Congress-I party.

2. Allegations of Mala Fide Actions by the Governor:
The petitioner claimed that the Governor's actions and speeches indicated an intention to dismiss the Tamil Nadu Government, thus violating the oath taken under Article 159 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner argued that these actions were against the interests of Tamil Nadu and were influenced by Congress-I leaders.

3. Admissibility of Newspaper Reports as Evidence:
The court extensively discussed the admissibility of newspaper reports. It was established that news items are hearsay and secondary evidence, and no judicial notice can be taken of them unless proved by evidence. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Laxmi Raj Shetty v. State of Tamil Nadu, which stated that newspaper reports by themselves are not evidence and must be proved by the reporter who heard the speech and sent the report.

4. Immunity of the Governor under Article 361 of the Constitution of India:
The court noted that Article 361(1) of the Constitution provides immunity to the Governor from being answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of his powers and duties. The court cited the Full Bench decision in K.A. Mathialagan v. The Governor, which held that even if the Governor's bona fides are questioned, he cannot be personally called to enter his defense. The court emphasized that this immunity applies even in cases of alleged mala fide actions.

5. Locus Standi of the Petitioner:
The petitioner claimed to be a social worker and argued that he had the locus standi to file the writ petition. The court referred to Hardwari Lal v. Bhajan Lal, which supported the petitioner's locus standi when the information conveyed by the Governor justly required court intervention to protect citizens' rights and liberties. However, the court found that the petitioner based his case solely on a newspaper report, which is inadmissible as evidence.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the allegations against the Governor were based solely on inadmissible newspaper reports and lacked any other material evidence. The court reiterated the absolute immunity provided to the Governor under Article 361 of the Constitution, which applies even in cases of alleged mala fide actions. The petitioner failed to provide any substantial proof beyond the newspaper report, leading to the dismissal of the petition without any order as to costs.