Constitution of India, 1950:

Article 156 Removal of Governor on withdrawal of President's pleasure - Judicial review - Scope - Limitations upon power of removal 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 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 that he is out of sync with the policies and ideologies of the Union 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 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.

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 r/w Article 311.

The Governors of the States of Uttar Pradesh, 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 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, 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 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 subservient to the Union Government, apart from demoralizing him, and therefore, the removal should 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 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 any relief and have accepted their removal without protest, no member of the public can bring a public interest litigation for grant of relief to them.

On merits, the Attorney General submitted that the removal should be for a reason, but such reason need not be communicated and also that removal by applying the doctrine of pleasure need not necessarily, relate to any act or omission or fault on the part of the Governor. He submitted that in essence, the object of providing that the Governor shall hold office during the pleasure of the President was that if the President lost faith in the Governor or found him unfit for whatever reason, he can withdraw the presidential pleasure resulting in removal; that the pleasure doctrine cannot be denuded of its width, by restricting its applications to specific instances of fault or misbehaviour on the part of the Governor, or by implying an obligation to assign or communicate any reason for the removal. The Attorney General submitted that in a democracy, political parties are formed on shared beliefs and they contest election with a declared agenda; and if a party which comes to power with a particular social and economic agenda, finds that a Governor is out of sync with its policies, then it should be able to remove such a Governor. The Attorney General submitted that the Union Government has the right to remove a Governor without attributing any fault to him, if the President loses confidence in a Governor or finds that the Governor is out of sync with democratic and electoral mandate.

The questions which thus arose for consideration were i) whether the writ petition was maintainable; ii) what is the scope of "doctrine of pleasure"; iii) what is the position of a Governor under the Constitution; iv) whether there are any express or implied limitations/restrictions upon the power under Article 156(1) of the Constitution and v) whether the removal of Governors in exercise of the doctrine of pleasure is open to judicial review.