Modi Government Pushes UPA Appointed Governors to Quit; Scope of Doctrine of Pleasure in Question

Recently the Modi Government asked some of the UPA appointed Governors to put in their papers. Uttar Pradesh Governor B L Joshi and Karnataka’s H R Bhardwaj have already tendered their resignations. According to News reports, Sheila Dikshit (Kerala), Margaret Alva (Rajasthan) and Kamla Beniwal (Gujarat), among others have been asked by the Modi government to put in their papers.

However, a section of the Media is saying that removing the Governor after a change of guard at the Centre will be against the spirit of the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2010. This group of gentlemen believes that such a removal could be done only for special and compelling reasons.

In the present post, I will present the key points mentioned in the said 2010 Supreme Court Judgment of B.P. Singhal v. Union of India & Another. In the subsequent posts, I will try to explain the reasons cited by the B.P. Singhal case and other such Supreme Court Cases. I will also explain the origin and scope of the Doctrine of Pleasure that is in question presently. Finally, I will give my honest and candid opinion on the whole issue.

The Court summarized its judgment as follows:

1. Under Article 156(1), the Governor holds office during the pleasure of the President. Therefore, the President can remove the Governor from office at any time without assigning any reason and without giving any opportunity to show cause.

2. Though no reason need be assigned for discontinuance of the pleasure resulting in removal, the 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. What would be compelling reasons would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

3. 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. Nor can he be removed on the ground that the 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.

4. 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, mala fide, 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 mala fide, 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.

In the next post, I will trace the origin and scope of the Doctrine of Pleasure in India.