As allegations of sexual harassment against West Bengal Governor C.V. Ananda Bose emerge, the Supreme Court prepares to evaluate the extent of constitutional immunity provided to state governors under Article 361.
Case Overview
The controversy arose when a contractual employee at the West Bengal Raj Bhavan accused Governor Bose of sexual harassment. She alleges that these incidents occurred on April 24 and May 2 under the guise of discussions about job opportunities. The accusations have triggered a broader debate about the legal protections afforded to governors.
In addition to the harassment allegations, the Governor’s staff is accused of obstructing the woman from filing her complaint. The petitioner seeks an immediate investigation, more explicit guidelines on governors’ immunity, and protection for herself and her family.
CCTV footage from the Raj Bhavan’s main gate has been partially examined but has not conclusively confirmed the victim’s presence at the alleged times of harassment. This inconsistency underscores the necessity for a comprehensive and impartial investigation.
Petitioner’s Objectives
The petition outlines several vital requests:
Prompt Investigation: The petitioner argues that victims should not wait for the governor to leave office to seek justice.
Clarified Guidelines: The plea seeks the establishment of clear guidelines defining the scope of governors’ immunity.
Detailed Police Investigation: A rigorous investigation by the West Bengal Police into the harassment claims.
Protection and Compensation: Ensuring safety for her and her family and compensating for the reputational harm inflicted by the incident.
What is Article 361?
Article 361 of the Indian Constitution grants the President and state governors immunity from criminal proceedings during their term in office. It specifies that no criminal proceedings can be initiated or continued against them, and no arrest or imprisonment orders can be issued. For civil proceedings related to personal actions, a two-month notice is mandatory.
This immunity allows high office holders to perform their duties without legal hindrance. However, this case questions whether such immunity should be absolute, particularly in instances involving severe criminal allegations.
The Supreme Court’s Review
A three-judge bench, consisting of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, will examine the scope and limitations of Article 361. The bench has also requested input from Attorney General R. Venkataramani, recognizing the significant constitutional implications of this review.
Historical Perspective
The concept of immunity for governors is rooted in the principle “rex non potest peccare,” or “the king can do no wrong,” derived from English legal traditions. This principle was adopted while drafting the Indian Constitution despite concerns about its implications for criminal accountability.
Broader Implications
The Supreme Court’s decision to reevaluate Article 361 could have profound consequences. It may lead to a redefinition of the balance between protecting high office holders from frivolous legal challenges and ensuring accountability for serious misconduct.
The outcome of this deliberation will be closely observed, not only for its impact on the accused governor but also for its broader implications on the legal framework governing the conduct of high-ranking officials in India. As the court considers this issue, the central question remains whether the immunity granted under Article 361 should remain an absolute shield or be adjusted to prevent potential abuses of power.
