A House Divided: Bombay High Court Splits on Cantonment Board Nominations

In a significant judicial divergence, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay has delivered a split verdict regarding the Central Government's authority to replace a nominated member of the Deolali Cantonment Board midway through her tenure. The case, Miss Pritam Dinkar Adhav v. Union of India , highlights a fundamental legal conflict between the "doctrine of pleasure" in appointments and the procedural safeguards provided under the Cantonments Act, 2006 .

The Battle for Representation

The petitioner, Miss Pritam Dinkar Adhav, had been serving as a nominated civilian member of the Deolali Cantonment Board since 2021. Her tenure, notified under Section 13 of the Act, was scheduled to continue until February 10, 2026. However, on March 6, 2025, the Ministry of Defence issued a notification substituting her with Mr. Sachin Thakre.

Adhav challenged this, arguing that the government had acted outside its legal authority by bypassing the removal procedure prescribed in Section 34 of the Act. Conversely, the Union of India and the respondents argued that the appointment was held at the "pleasure of the government" and that the power to nominate inherently included the power to replace.

The Divergent Views

The two-judge bench—consisting of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Neela Gokhale—found themselves unable to reach a consensus, resulting in a rare split decision that will now require the intervention of the Chief Justice.

Justice Revati Mohite Dere emphasized that the Act is a "complete code" and that, while the government can vary the constitution of a Board, it cannot arbitrarily substitute a member without following the "show cause" procedure stipulated in Section 34 . For Justice Dere, the act of "substitution" was, in substance, an "arbitrary removal," and she ordered the petitioner’s reinstatement.

Justice Neela Gokhale , however, disagreed. She maintained that the doctrine of pleasure governs such nominations. She reasoned that because there was no minimum tenure specified for the nominated member, the government retained the discretion to rescind a nomination in consultation with the military command, as provided under the Act and reinforced by the General Clauses Act .

Key Observations

The bench's split reasoning underscores the complexities of administrative discretion:

> "The Petitioner’s premature removal was effected without adherence to Section 34 of the Cantonments Act, 2006, which prescribes grounds and procedure for removal of both elected and nominated members." — Justice Revati Mohite Dere

> "In the absence of any minimum tenure prescribed for nominated members... the tenure of such a nominee is at the pleasure of the Central Government." — Justice Neela Gokhale

> "The doctrine of pleasure does not mean a licence to act arbitrarily, capriciously or whimsically." — Reference quoted by Justice Dere (B.P. Singhal v. Union of India)

Implications for Cantonment Boards

Because of the split, the court has referred the matter to the Chief Justice, meaning the final word on whether the government possesses unfettered power or must adhere to rigid procedural standards for nominated positions remains unsettled. For the Deolali Cantonment Board, the ambiguity continues. The practical impact is significant: if the "doctrine of pleasure" is upheld, civilian nominations to strategic military cantonments may become highly susceptible to shifting political winds. If procedural due process is mandated, however, it would cement a level of stability for public servants that the government is clearly seeking to avoid, as evidenced by their reliance on the General Clauses Act to argue for inherent substitutive power.

This case serves as a critical junction for administrative law, balancing the executive's need for control over strategic areas with the democratic principles of transparency and fairness in public appointments.

---

Status : The matter is currently pending before the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court for further directions.