A Governor of a State was appointed by a Polity Party’s regime. The party lost the election in the next elections. The newly formed Central Government asked the Governor to leave the office even though he did not complete five years. Discuss the validity of such action.

Facts of the Case

A Governor of a State was appointed during the tenure of a particular political party at the Centre. After subsequent general elections, a new Central Government came to power. The new Government asked the Governor to leave office, even though he had not completed the five-year term. The issue arises whether such action is constitutionally valid.

Issues in the Case

1. Whether the President (or Central Government) can remove a Governor before the completion of the five-year term.
2. Whether the Governor enjoys security of tenure under the Constitution.
3. Whether such removal violates principles of federalism and constitutional safeguards.

Legal Principles Covered

A. Constitutional Provisions

1. Article 155 – Appointment of Governors
   • Governor is appointed by the President of India for a term of five years, at the pleasure of the President.
2. Article 156(1) – Term of Office
   • Governor holds office for five years from the date of assumption, but is subject to pleasure of the President.
3. Article 156(3)
   • Governor may resign at any time by addressing the President.

B. Judicial Principles / Precedents

1. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831
   • Held that a Governor holds office during the pleasure of the President.
   • Security of tenure is not absolute, and political considerations may influence removal.
2. B.P. Singhal v. Union of India (2010) 6 SCC 1
   • Supreme Court clarified:
     • Governor’s removal cannot be arbitrary or mala fide.
     • “Pleasure of the President” is not unfettered; must be exercised in good faith.
     • Removal cannot be for political vendetta or purely partisan reasons.
3. Principle of Federalism
   • Governor is a constitutional head of the State.
   • Removal must not undermine State autonomy or destabilize State government.

C. Principles

• “Pleasure of the President”:
  • Constitutionally valid, but judicially reviewable for mala fide exercise.
• Tenure vs. Security:
  • Five-year term is maximum term, not guaranteed.
  • Governor can be removed before completion, but process and reason must be constitutional and bona fide.

Possible Judgement / Legal Advice

1. Validity of Removal
   • Central Government cannot remove a Governor purely for political reasons.
   • Removal must be in good faith, for valid constitutional reasons, and not to penalize a Governor for the previous regime.
2. Judicial Oversight
   • Courts may examine whether removal was mala fide (B.P. Singhal case).
   • If removal is found arbitrary or politically motivated, it may be declared unconstitutional.
3. Advisory Conclusion
   • While Article 156(1) allows removal at the pleasure of the President, such power is not absolute.
   • Governor’s tenure should not be terminated merely for change in Central Government.
   • Best practice: Unless there are valid reasons affecting governance or constitutional propriety, the Governor should be allowed to complete the term of office.

About lawgnan

Explore the constitutional boundaries of governor removal constitutional powers under Article 156 at Lawgnan.in. Understand how the Supreme Court in B.P. Singhal v. Union of India safeguarded the federal spirit by ruling that a Governor’s removal cannot be arbitrary or politically motivated. Learn the balance between “pleasure of the President” and constitutional good faith in maintaining federal harmony. Discover how judicial oversight ensures fair governance and prevents misuse of executive discretion. Visit Lawgnan.in to read detailed case summaries, expert legal analyses, and constitutional interpretations protecting democratic stability in India.