The seven judges on the bench resolved the current issue, which is a landmark decision of shamsher singh vs state of Punjab pertaining to the idea of the governor’s discretionary power. Probationary employees of the Punjab Civil Service (judicial branch) were the appellants in this case. In compliance with the recommendations of the High Court and several pertinent provisional regulations, the Chief Minister and other Ministers issued an order terminating the probationary period of both appellants. Without seeking input from the president or obtaining his consent, the Punjab governor signed the termination orders.
shamsher singh vs state of Punjab Case Facts
- The two appeals from the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s ruling serve as the foundation for this case.
- Both of the appellants in this case entered the public civil service, but they were placed on probation.
- The Punjab government issued an order on April 27, 1967, terminating Governor Shamsher Singh’s tenure without cause.
- On December 15, 1969, the Government, acting on behalf of the Governor, submitted recommendations to the High Court that resulted in the dismissal of the other appellant, Ishwar Chand Aggarwal.
shamsher singh vs state of Punjab Issues
- Is it possible for the Governor, who serves as the official head of state, to appoint and remove members of the lower court service at his discretion?
Contentions by the Parties
Appellant:
- The appellants argued that the Governor alone has the authority to appoint and remove judges serving in the lower courts since he is the official head of state.
- The appellants relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Sardari Lal case, which concluded that the President or the Governor’s personal satisfaction is required in order for an order to be made under article 311 of the indian constitution.
- The appellants argued that the Governor may, on the recommendation of the High Court, remove any Subordinate Judge without cause or return him to his prior position during his probationary period in accordance with Rule 7(2) in Part D of the Punjab Civil Rules. It is believed that Rule 7(2) exempts the Rules of Business Rule 18 from application.
Respondent:
- The State argues that rather than acting at his own discretion, the Governor uses his authority with the support and counsel of the Council of Ministers.
- The state further argues that, similar to the President, who is the constitutional head of the Union, the Governor is the constitutional head of the state and that, with the council of ministers’ assistance and counsel, both of them carry out their duties and exercise their authority.
shamsher singh vs state of Punjab Judgment
- Justice A. N. Ray delivered the majority opinion in this case. The President and the Governor, respectively, are vested with the executive authority of the Union and the State. The Union’s acts are carried out by the Government in the President’s name, as specified by Article 77(1), in the exercise of the President’s authority granted by Article 53(1).
- Similar to this, the government of the state acts in the governor’s name in accordance with Article 166(1) when exercising the executive functions of the State granted to the governor as stated in Article 154(1).
- Furthermore, as they do not perform the executive functions directly, neither the President nor the Governor may be sued for the government’s executive activities, as specified by Articles 300 and 361.
- When the governor uses the ministers to assist him in carrying out his duties, he does so by either designating tasks to those ministries or creating regulations to ensure the State Government’s business runs smoothly, as stated in Article 166(3).
- Under this article, the decisions made by the ministries are regarded as the Governor’s own. Under the British parliamentary system, courts have consistently viewed the President’s and the Governor’s powers as equivalent to those of the Crown.
- As the head of state appointed by the constitution, the Governor appoints and dismisses people based on the support and advice of the Ministers. In the issue at hand, the court decided that the Governor and the President of the State follow the Minister’s recommendations in all situations, whether they are legislative or executive in nature.
- When the Governor acts on his own initiative, he does so in coordination with the Council of Ministers. Since this is an executive act, the Governor’s appointment and removal of a Subordinate Judge should be based on the assistance and recommendation of the Ministers.
- When the authorities believe that a probationary action could result in their termination, they are not allowed to carry out an investigation. The probationer may request protection in certain situations.
- But if the probationer is fired without following Rule 311(2)’s guidelines and an investigation is launched into his case due to accusations of corruption or maladministration, he may be entitled to protection.
- The appellant claims that the actions of the High Court were not in line with the Constitution. The Governor is required by article 235 of the indian constitution to implement the High Court’s recommendations. Instead of the High Court using the District Judges to carry out an investigation, the Enquiry Officer provided a report on the purported misbehaviour.
- The High Court thereby broke article 311 of the indian constitution.The applicant’s suitability must be determined by the authorities, the court ruled, holding the termination order to be unlawful. As a result, Ishwar Chand’s termination order was revoked.
- The Court upheld the long-standing legal precept that the Governor and President are only the leaders of state, exercising the authority and duties of the Council of Ministers. In the constitutional sense of the cabinet system, the President and the Governor are obligated to satisfy their Council of Ministers, not themselves.
- Constitutional law states that the Ministers, not the Head of State, are in charge of carrying out the “business” of government and performing the “functions” of the President and the Governor.
- The phrase “aid and advice” of ministers refers to the legal definition of what it means, within the framework of our constitutional system’s Cabinet system, that each minister acts and makes decisions in his or her own capacity and is not subject to the President’s authority to accept or reject any such action or decision, with the exception of governors, to the limited extent allowed by Article 163. The Sardari Lal v. Union of India case was overruled by the ruling.
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
