In 2010, the Supreme Court of India rendered a historic decision in the matter of bp singhal v union of india, which dealt with the issue of governors being arbitrarily removed from office and the interpretation of the constitutional requirements pertaining to their term. By making clear the rules for governor removals, the ruling guaranteed some stability and fairness in the operation of this constitutional post.
bp singhal v union of india Case Facts
- In accordance with article 32 of the indian constitution, this matter is a writ petition. Due to its significant public interest and the fact that it calls for a thorough reading of article 156 of the constitution, this case is historic.
- As per Articles 155 and 156 of The Constitution of India, 1949, the Governor of a State is nominated by the President of India and holds office “during the pleasure of the President.”
- A governor is typically only able to hold office for a maximum of five years. On July 2, 2004, the Governors of Gujarat, Goa, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh were removed by the President of India, acting on the Council of Ministers’ suggestion and with the support of article 74 of the indian constitution.
- A writ petition was filed in response to the same action, seeking the reinstatement of the aforementioned Governors of the States through public interest litigation.
bp singhal v union of india Issues
- Was the petition that was filed admissible in front of the court?
- What does the 1949 Indian Constitution’s “doctrine of pleasure” encompass?
- According to The Constitution of India, 1949, what is the role of a governor?
- Are there any specific constraints or limitations on the use of article 156 (1) of the indian constitution, 1949?
- In the event that the President withdraws his or her pleasure, what is the extent of judicial review?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- A governor is held to a high standard of constitutional accountability, along with a few essential legal tasks, as the petitioner argued. Consequently, the Governor is not a servant of the Union Government just because he is appointed by the President and maintains his position in accordance with the “doctrine of pleasure.”
- The Governor’s beliefs or choices, or the affiliations they have with them, cannot serve as the exclusive basis for the deletion. The governor may only be removed in exceptional and infrequent circumstances.
- The Governor must be provided a cause for his removal, even if no suitable statement is supplied; this will guarantee transparency.
- Furthermore, the petitioner stated that the Doctrine of Pleasure could not be invoked in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner.
- The petitioner further contended that when a governor is facing removal, he has to be informed of the reasons behind it and given the opportunity to defend his position.
Respondent:
- Above all, article 156(1) of the indian constitution, 1949, grants the President complete and unrestricted authority to remove any Governor. Therefore, it is prohibited to take any action to restrict the Doctrine of Pleasure because it is not positioned with any protocols in The Constitution of India, 1949.
- In addition, the respondent supplied evidence for his position by pointing out that Article 74(2) of The Constitution of India, 1949 prohibits courts from interfering with advice given to the President through the Union of Ministers.
- Additionally, he contended that the Governors removed by the President’s order on July 2, 2004, were no longer in difficulty, and that no member of the public could file a public interest litigation (PIL) to reinstate the removed Governors in their positions.
- Furthermore, it was reasoned that the “doctrine of pleasure” might be invoked merely in the event that the President believed the Governor lacked the necessary qualifications for the position, rather than being applied to every error made by the Governor.
- Additionally, it will be crucial to remove a governor who does not align with the ideology and values that the majority of the population shares in a country like India where the people elect their own representatives.
bp singhal v union of india Judgment
- The focus of the court was on the president’s ability to remove the governor because the latter serves at the president’s pleasure.
- He is free to remove the governor from office at any moment and for any reason.
- Anytime the governor is removed, it must not be done in an arbitrary, capricious, or irrational way.
This ruling on the dismissal of governors and the president’s pleasure was historic. This ruling gave the president the authority to decide whether to remove the governor. The president is in charge and has the authority to fire anyone for any reason. The governor is the head of state, but since the president grants him the position, he is beholden to the president. The court further stated that a change in union administration does not permit a change in the governor.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
