New Delhi, July 2: The Centre’s dismissal today of four governors came after the home ministry sent a note — vetted by the law ministry — to the President that their continuation in office was “untenable”.

A law ministry official said a note had earlier been sent to the home ministry that “unless there is a ground to show that the commission or omission of a governor is unbecoming of the high constitutional office, a governor cannot be removed”.

After that, the home ministry showed that they belonged to a “particular ideology” (read RSS) that was “divisive”, which was placed before the President.

The practice by governments to recall or pressure governors appointed by earlier regimes to resign has come into sharp focus and could revive a petition pending before a five-judge Constitution bench. In 1991, the Congress had moved the Supreme Court, saying governors should not be removed at the “pleasure” of the President.

Congress counsel Ranji Thomas had then challenged similar removals by the Chandra Shekhar regime. But the issue could not be solved as elections were held soon after and the Congress came back to power. Justice A.S. Anand had, however, made it clear that “we are keeping open this issue to decide in a future situation”.

“This may be revived now as two of the sacked governors are planning to move the Supreme Court,” a source said.

Former attorney-general Soli J. Sorabjee said the dismissals were “arbitrary”. “Power (to remove or recall a governor) can be exercised only if the governor has done any act of omission or commission which renders him unfit to occupy the office.”

The Constitution empowers the President to remove or recall a governor. Under Article 156, “the governor shall hold office during the pleasure of the President” who, in turn, “acts under the advice of the council of ministers headed by the Prime Minister”.

Sorabjee said there were “inherent limitations (for the government) in this very constitutional provision, namely every power can be exercised with proper reasoning and every action of the government must be informed by reason and must not be arbitrary. This is the yardstick”.

According to former Supreme Court Bar Association president M.N. Krishnamani, governors hold office during the “pleasure” of the President, but that did not mean they could be arbitrarily removed. They could be sacked only if their action was unbecoming of the high office or they had violated constitutional provisions or they were corrupt.

Swaraj Kaushal, former Mizoram governor and now a Rajya Sabha member, termed the removals “unethical”. “It is unfortunate that every government has changed governors, rendering the concept of governors’ independence only as a theory and not practice,” he said.