2010 Supreme(SC) 436

2010 (4) Supreme 619
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CJI, K G Balakrishnan, S H Kapadia, R V Raveendran, B Sudershan Reddy and P Sathasivam, JJ.
B.P. Singhal — Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Anr. — Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No.296 of 2004
With
TP (C) No.663 of 2004
Decided on : 7-05-2010

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. The extent and depth of judicial review depends upon and vary with reference to the matter under review.
2. President can remove the Governor from office at any time without assigning any reason and without giving any opportunity to show cause. Though no reason need be assigned for discontinuance of pleasure resulting in removal, power under Article 156(1) cannot be exercised in an arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner.
3. Any removal of Governor as a consequence of withdrawal of the pleasure of President is assumed to be valid and is open to only a limited judicial review.

Headnote:Constitution of India,1950- Article 32 -Writ petition filed as a public interest litigation in the wake of removal of Governors of the States of Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana and Goa on 2.7.2004 by the President of India on the advice of Union Council of Ministers- The petitioner sought a direction to Union of India to produce entire files, documents and facts which formed basis of order dated 2.7.2004 of President of India, a writ of certiorari, quashing the removal of the four Governors; and a writ of mandamus to respondents to allow the said four Governors to complete their remaining term of five years-Petitioner contended that a Governor should ordinarily be permitted to continue in office for the full term of five years and though he holds office during pleasure of President, he could be removed before expiry of the term of five years, only in rare and exceptional circumstances- Held Under Article 156(1), Governor holds office during the pleasure of President- Therefore, President can remove the Governor from office at any time without assigning any reason and without giving any opportunity to show cause- Though no reason need be assigned for discontinuance of pleasure resulting in removal, 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 petitioner (that is physical/mental disability, corruption and behavior unbecoming of a Governor) but are of a wider amplitude-What would be compelling reasons would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case- A Governor cannot be removed on the ground that he is out of sync with the policies and ideologies of Union Government or the party in power at the Centre- Nor can he be removed on the ground that 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-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, court will call upon Union Government to disclose to court, material upon which President had taken the decision to withdraw the pleasure- If 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, court will not interfere merely on the ground that a different view is possible or that material or reasons are insufficient-Writ petition disposed of. (Paras 50, 51)

       Doctrine of pleasure –Scope of -When the Constitution of India provides that some offices will be held during the pleasure of the President, without any express limitations or restrictions, it should however necessarily be read as being subject to “fundamentals of constitutionalism”- Therefore in a constitutional set up,when an office is held during the pleasure of any Authority, and if no limitations or restrictions are placed on the “at pleasure” doctrine, it means that the holder of the office can be removed by the authority at whose pleasure he holds office, at any time, without notice and without assigning any cause- The doctrine of pleasure, however, is not a licence to act with unfettered discretion to act arbitrarily, whimsically, or capriciously- It does not dispense with the need for a cause for withdrawal of the pleasure- “At pleasure” doctrine enables the removal of a person holding office at the pleasure of an Authority, summarily, without any obligation to give any notice or hearing to the person removed, and without any obligation to assign any reasons or disclose any cause for the removal, or withdrawal of pleasure- The withdrawal of pleasure cannot be at the sweet will, whim and fancy of the Authority, but can only be for valid reasons. (Para 22)

       Governor –Position of-The Governor constitutes an integral part of the legislature of a State-He is vested with the legislative power to promulgate ordinances while the Houses of the legislature are not in session- The executive power of the State is vested in him and every executive action of the Government is taken in his name- He exercises the sovereign power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment- He is vested with the power to summon each House of the Legislature or to prorogue either House or to dissolve the legislative assembly- No Bill passed by the Houses of the Legislature can become law unless it is assented to by him- He has to make a report where he finds that a situation has arisen in which the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the Constitution- He thus occupies a high constitutional office with important constitutional functions and duties. (Para 23)

       Facts of the Case :

       A Writ petition was filed as a public interest litigation herein in the instant case in wake of removal of Governors of the States of Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana and Goa on 2.7.2004 by the President of India on the advice of Union Council of Ministers. The petitioner sought a direction to Union of India to produce entire files, documents and facts which formed basis of order dated 2.7.2004 of President of India, a writ of certiorari, quashing the removal of the four Governors; and a writ of mandamus to respondents to allow the said four Governors to complete their remaining term of five years. Petitioner contended that a Governor should ordinarily be permitted to continue in office for the full term of five years and though he holds office during pleasure of President, he could be removed before expiry of the term of five years, only in rare and exceptional circumstances.

       Findings of the Court :

       Under Article 156(1), Governor holds office during the pleasure of President. Therefore, President can remove the Governor from office at any time without assigning any reason and without giving any opportunity to show cause. Though no reason need be assigned for discontinuance of pleasure resulting in removal, 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 petitioner (that is physical/mental disability, corruption and behavior unbecoming of a Governor) but are of a wider amplitude. What would be compelling reasons would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case. A Governor cannot be removed on the ground that he is out of sync with the policies and ideologies of Union Government or the party in power at the Centre. Nor can he be removed on the ground that 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.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, court will call upon Union Government to disclose to court, material upon which President had taken the decision to withdraw the pleasure. If 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, court will not interfere merely on the ground that a different view is possible or that material or reasons are insufficient. Writ petition was disposed of.