Article 361:Immunity Shield for Governors & Its Implications

Why in News

In the recent controversy surrounding West Bengal Governor C V Ananda Bose, where a complaint alleging sexual harassment has been filed against him in Kolkata, the Constitutional immunity provided by Article 361 has come into sharp focus.
This article, enshrined within the Indian Constitution, grants immunity to the President and Governors of States from legal proceedings during their term in office.

Article 361 delineates the scope of immunity granted to the President and Governors, asserting that they “shall not be answerable to any court” for the exercise of their powers and duties during their tenure.
The provision further stipulates that no criminal proceedings shall be initiated or continued against them, nor shall any process for arrest or imprisonment be issued by any court during their term in office.

Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat elucidates that the Constitution envisages a comprehensive shield against prosecuting Governors.

They cannot be named as accused in any criminal proceedings while in office.
Legal action can only be pursued once the Governor ceases to hold office, either by resignation or loss of confidence from the President.

The landmark 2006 ruling in Rameshwar Prasad v Union of India underscored the broad immunity enjoyed by Governors, even in cases of personal malfeasance.
The Supreme Court emphasized that Governors are not answerable to any court for the exercise of their constitutional powers and duties.
However, while the immunity shields Governors from criminal proceedings, there have been instances where legal action has been halted until the Governor completes their term.
A notable example is the Babri Masjid demolition case, where criminal charges against former UP Chief Minister Kalyan Singh were deferred due to his incumbency as the Governor of Rajasthan.

The immunity provided by Article 361 has been subject to scrutiny and criticism. Critics argue that such blanket immunity may impede accountability and hinder the course of justice, especially in cases involving serious allegations against high-ranking officials.
The delay in legal proceedings until the Governor’s term ends can lead to a perception of impunity and undermine public trust in the judiciary.

While Article 361 serves to protect the independence and functioning of high constitutional offices, there is a need to strike a balance between immunity and accountability.
The Constitution must evolve to ensure that while Governors are shielded from frivolous litigation and political vendettas, there are mechanisms in place to address serious allegations of wrongdoing.

Article 361 of the Indian Constitution provides crucial immunity to the President and Governors during their term in office, shielding them from legal proceedings and arrest.
While this provision safeguards the integrity of high constitutional offices, it also raises pertinent questions regarding accountability and the administration of justice. Striking a balance between immunity and accountability is imperative to uphold the principles of democracy and the rule of law. As such, ongoing discussions and judicial interpretations will continue to shape the application of Article 361 in India’s constitutional framework.