B.P. SINGHAL versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2010] 6 S.C.R. 589 · Decided: 07-05-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2.010] 6 S.C.R. 589 
B.P. SINGHAL 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
(Writ Petition (C) No. 296 of 2004) 
MAY 7, 2010 
[K.G.BALAKRISHNAN, CJI, S.H. KAPADIA, R.V. · 
RAVEENDRAN, B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND P. 
SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
A 
B 
c 
Article 156 - Removal of Governor on withdrawal of 
President's pleasure - Judicial review -
Scop~ - Limitations 
upon power ofremoval of Governors under Article 156(1) -
Held: The President can remove the Governor from office at 
any time without assigning any reason and without giving any D 
opportunity to show cause - However, power .under Article 
156(1) to be exercised in rare and exceptional circumstances 
for valid and compelling reasons ·- What would be compelling . 
reasons would depend upon the facts and circumstances of 
each case - A Governor cannot be removed on the ground 
E 
that he is out of sync with the policies and ideologies of the 
U(lion Government or the party in power at the Centre -
Change in government at Centre is not a ground for removal 
of Governors holding office - As there is no need to assign 
reasons,· any removal as a consequence of withdrawal of the 
F 
pleasure will be assumed to be valid and will be open to only 
a limited judicial review - If the aggrieved person is able to 
d~monstrate 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 
G 
,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 -
589 
H 
590 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 6 S.C.R. 
A However, the court will not interfere mersly on the ground that 
a different view is possible or that the material or reasons are 
insufficient. 
B 
c 
Articles 154 and 155 - Position of Governor under the 
Constitution - Discussed. 
Article 32 - Writ petition by way of PIL, to secure relief 
for Governors who had been removed from office -
Maintainability of the writ petition - Locus of the Petitioner -
Public Interest Litigation. 
Doctrines - Doctrine of "pleasure" - Origin, scope and 
applicability of - Discussed - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 310 rlw Article 311. 
The Governors of the States of Uttar Pradesh, 
D Gujarat, Haryana and Goa on 2-7-2004 were removed by 
the President of India on the advice of the Union Council 
of Ministers. 
In the wake of removal of the Governors, writ petition 
E was filed before this Court, raising a question of public 
importance involving the interpretation of Article 156 of 
the Constitution. 
The petitioner submitted that to ensure the 
independence and effective functioning of Governors, 
F certain safeguards have to be read as limitations upon 
the power of removal of Governors under Article 156(1) 
[which provides that a Governor shall hold office during 
the pleasure of the President]; that there should be some 
certainty of tenure so that the Governor can discharge 
G the duties and functions of his constitutional office 
effectively and independently; that certainty of tenure will 
be achieved by fixing the norms for removal, while 
recognizing an unfettered discretion will subject a 
Governor to a constant threat of removal and make him 
H subservient to the Union Government, apart from 
B.P. SINGHAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
591 
demoralizing him, and therefore, the removal should 
A 
conform to the constitutional norms viz. i) removal of the 
Governor to be in rare and exceptional circumstances, for 
compelling reasons which make him unfit to continue in 
office; ii) the Governor to be apprised of the reasons for 
removal; and iii) the order of removal to be subject to 
B 
judicial review. 
The Attorney General appearing on behalf of the 
respondents raised a preliminary objection to the 
maintainability of the writ petition. He submitted that if the 
four Governors who were removed, do not wish to seek C 
. any relief and have accepted their removal without 
'"Protest, no member of the public can bring a public 
irrterest litigation for grant of relief to them. 
On merits, the Attorney General submitted that the o 
remoyal should be for a reason, but such reason need 
not ,Oe communicated and also that removal by applying 
the doctrine of pleasure need not necessarily relate to 
any act or omission or faul

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.