Governor’s Immunity Under Article 361: A Supreme Court Review

Article 361 of the Indian Constitution provides certain immunities to the President and Governors of states. This provision has been in the spotlight due to a recent Supreme Court decision to review its scope.

Key Provisions of Article 361

• Non-answerability to courts: The President or Governor is not answerable to any court for the exercise of their powers and duties.
• Immunity from criminal proceedings: No criminal proceedings can be initiated or continued against the President or Governor during their term of office.
• Immunity from arrest and imprisonment: The President or Governor cannot be arrested or imprisoned while in office.
• Immunity from civil suits: Civil suits for personal acts against the President or Governor cannot be initiated during their term and can only proceed two months after a written notice is given post-term.

The Supreme Court’s Review

The Supreme Court has agreed to examine the contours of Article 361 in a case involving allegations of molestation against a state Governor. The petitioner argues that the blanket immunity provided by the article prevents the police from investigating the charges.

The court’s decision will be crucial in determining the extent of immunity enjoyed by Governors. It may redefine the scope of Article 361, striking a balance between the need to protect constitutional authorities and the rights of citizens to seek justice.

Potential Implications:

• Redefining the scope of immunity: The court may clarify whether the immunity extends to all actions of the Governor or only to official acts.
• Impact on governance: A narrower interpretation of immunity could enhance accountability and transparency in governance.
• Balancing constitutional principles: The court will need to reconcile the principles of separation of powers and the right to equality.

The outcome of this case will have significant implications for the role and accountability of Governors in India.