Why in News?  The Supreme Court of India has recently agreed to examine a plea filed by a woman staff member of the West Bengal Raj Bhawan, who has accused Governor CV Ananda Bose of sexual harassment.

The plea challenges the immunity granted to the governor of a state under Article 361 of the Indian Constitution and seeks several directions and investigations.

Article 361 of the Indian Constitution provides special protections to the President of India and the Governors of states. It outlines their immunities from certain types of legal proceedings while in office. The relevant portions of Article 361 are as follows:

Protection from Legal Proceedings: The President or a Governor is not answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of their powers and duties.

Immunity from Criminal Proceedings: No criminal proceedings can be initiated or continued against the President or a Governor during their term of office.

Exemption from Arrest or Imprisonment: The President or a Governor cannot be arrested or imprisoned during their term of office.

Civil Proceedings: No civil proceedings in which relief is claimed against the President or a Governor can be instituted during their term of office in respect of any act done in their personal capacity, whether before or after assuming office, unless:

A two-month notice is given to the President or Governor, stating the nature of the proceedings, the cause of action, the name, description, and place of residence of the party, and the relief claimed.

 Issues Related to Article 361:

Article 361 is significant in maintaining the dignity and authority of the highest offices in the country. However, it has also been a subject of debate and controversy due to the following reasons:

Scope of Immunity: There are debates on whether the immunity granted under Article 361 is too broad, potentially allowing misuse of power by the President or Governors without legal accountability.

Judicial Review: Questions arise about the extent to which the actions of the President or Governors can be scrutinized by the judiciary, given the protections afforded by Article 361.

Accountability: Concerns exist about how to balance the immunity provided to these high offices with the need for accountability and transparency in a democratic setup.

Recent Case Law:

• One of the recent notable cases related to Article 361 is “The State of Kerala v. Mahesh S. P. & Ors.” decided by the Supreme Court of India.

Case Background:

In this case, the Governor of Kerala, Arif Mohammad Khan, was alleged to have made certain controversial statements and actions that were questioned in court. The issue was whether the Governor’s statements could be subjected to judicial scrutiny given the protections under Article 361.

Supreme Court’s Observations:

Immunity of the Governor: The Supreme Court reiterated that Article 361 grants immunity to the Governor from being answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of their office.

Judicial Review: The Court emphasized that while the actions of the Governor are protected, the decisions made by the Governor in their capacity can still be subject to judicial review if they affect the rights of individuals or involve constitutional issues.

Balance of Power: The judgment highlighted the importance of maintaining a balance between the immunity provided to high constitutional offices and ensuring that such immunity does not lead to arbitrary or unaccountable actions.

This case underscores the complexities involved in interpreting Article 361 and balancing the need for constitutional protections with the principles of accountability and rule of law.