Gubernatorial Office and Change of Government at the Centre

B.P. Singhal vs Union of India & Anr (WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.296 OF 2004) decided on May 7, 2010 by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India:

(i) Under Article 156(1), the Governor holds office during the pleasure of the President. Therefore, the President can remove the Governor from office  at any time without assigning any reason and without giving any opportunity to show cause.

(ii) Though no reason need be assigned for discontinuance of the pleasure resulting in removal, the power under Article 156(1) cannot be exercised in an arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner. The power will have to be exercised in rare and exceptional circumstances for valid and compelling reasons. THE COMPELLING REASONS ARE NOT RESTRICTED TO THOSE ENUMERATED BY THE PETITIONER (THAT IS PHYSICAL/MENTAL DISABILITY, CORRUPTION AND BEHAVIOUR UNBECOMING OF A GOVERNOR) BUT ARE OF A WIDER AMPLITUDE. What would be compelling reasons would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

 (iii) A GOVERNOR CANNOT BE REMOVED ON THE GROUND THAT HE IS OUT OF SYNC WITH THE POLICIES AND IDEOLOGIES OF THE UNION GOVERNMENT OR THE PARTY IN POWER AT THE CENTRE. NOR CAN HE BE REMOVED ON THE GROUND THAT THE UNION GOVERNMENT HAS LOST CONFIDENCE IN HIM. IT FOLLOWS THEREFORE THAT CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT AT CENTRE IS NOT A GROUND FOR REMOVAL OF GOVERNORS HOLDING OFFICE TO MAKE WAY FOR OTHERS FAVOURED BY THE NEW GOVERNMENT.

(iv) As there is no need to assign reasons, any removal as a consequence of withdrawal of the pleasure will be assumed to be valid and will be open to only a limited judicial review. If the aggrieved person is able to demonstrate prima facie that his removal was either arbitrary, malafide, capricious or whimsical, the court will call upon the Union Government to disclose to the court, the material upon which the President had taken the decision to withdraw the pleasure. If the Union Government does not disclose any reason, or if the reasons disclosed are found to be irrelevant, arbitrary, whimsical, or malafide, the court will interfere. However, the court will not interfere merely on the ground that a different view is possible or that the material or reasons are insufficient.

NOTE: The Supreme Court directions had come on a petition filed by Uttar Pradesh ex-DGP and the then BJP MP BP Singhal (Rajya Sabha 1998-2004) and brother of Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s Ashok Singhal.  BP Singhal had filed a PIL in 2004 challenging the removal of NDA appointed Governors of Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana and Orissa by the new UPA government. It would be interesting to see as to  whether the current regime will repeat the history of UPA or it will accord honour in letter and spirit to said judicial pronouncement of SC that came into being at the instance of an erstwhile BJP Member of Parliament impugning the action of the then UPA-1 Government????