B.P. Singhal vs Union of India (2010)

The case of B.P. Singhal v Union of India is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India that clarified the scope and application of the Doctrine of Pleasure under Article 156 of the Indian Constitution. The court addressed the arbitrary removal of Governors and set significant precedents regarding the role, independence, and accountability of Governors in India’s federal structure. This judgement reinforced constitutional values by ensuring the stability and dignity of the Governor’s position, balancing executive discretion with constitutional checks.

Facts of B.P. Singhal vs Union of India

• Petitioner’s Background: B.P. Singhal, a former Member of Parliament, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, challenging the removal of Governors of Gujarat, Goa, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh. The Governors were removed on July 2, 2004, based on the advice of the Union Council of Ministers, following a change in the Central Government.
• Constitutional Provisions Involved:
  • Article 156(1): The Governor shall hold office during the pleasure of the President.
  • Article 74(1): The President exercises powers based on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
  • Articles 155 & 156(3): Governors are appointed by the President for a term of five years but may be removed before the term ends.
• Petitioner’s Claims: The petitioner argued that the removal of Governors was arbitrary, politically motivated, and contrary to constitutional principles. He sought a writ of certiorari to quash the removals and a writ of mandamus directing the reinstatement of the Governors for the remainder of their terms.

Issues Raised 

The issues raised in B.P. Singhal vs Union of India were:

1. Maintainability of the Petition: Can a PIL be entertained when the aggrieved Governors themselves have not challenged their removal?
2. Doctrine of Pleasure: What is the scope of the Doctrine of Pleasure under Article 156(1) of the Constitution of India?
3. Governor’s Role: What is the constitutional position of the Governor? Is it independent or subordinate to the Union Government?
4. Limitations on Article 156(1): Are there any express or implied constraints on the President’s power to remove Governors?
5. Judicial Review: To what extent can the judiciary review the President’s decision to remove a Governor?

Arguments Presented in B.P. Singhal vs Union of India 

Petitioner’s Contentions

1. On Doctrine of Pleasure: The Doctrine of Pleasure under Article 156 is not absolute and cannot be exercised arbitrarily. Removal must be based on valid grounds, such as incapacity, corruption, or gross misconduct, and not on ideological or political differences. Arbitrary removal undermines the independence and constitutional role of the Governor.
2. Governor’s Independence: The Governor is an independent constitutional authority, not a servant of the Union Government. Governors are critical in maintaining the federal balance and ensuring impartiality in governance.
3. Transparency in Removal: Reasons for removal must be communicated to the Governor to ensure transparency and accountability.
4. Judicial Oversight: Judicial review is essential to prevent misuse of executive discretion and uphold constitutional values.

Respondent’s Contentions:

1. Doctrine of Pleasure is Absolute: Article 156(1) grants the President unrestricted authority to remove Governors at any time without providing reasons. This authority is based on the British legal tradition of the Crown’s prerogative.
2. Non-Interference by Judiciary: Article 74(2) bars courts from questioning the advice tendered by the Council of Ministers to the President.
   • Judicial interference would violate the principle of separation of powers.
3. Political Alignment: Governors should align with the Union Government’s ideology for effective governance. A Governor who does not share the government’s vision can obstruct policy implementation.
4. Maintainability of the Petition: The PIL is not maintainable as the removed Governors themselves did not challenge their dismissal.

B.P. Singhal vs Union of India Judgement

The Supreme Court in B.P. Singhal v Union of India  ruled in favour of the petitioner on critical constitutional issues, delivering the following key findings:

1. Maintainability of the Petition: The court in B.P. Singhal versus Union of India  upheld the maintainability of the PIL, recognising that the issue involved public interest and had implications for India’s federal structure. The fact that the Governors did not challenge their removal did not bar judicial scrutiny of the constitutional principles involved.
2. Doctrine of Pleasure: The Doctrine of Pleasure under Article 156(1) is not absolute and is subject to constitutional principles. The removal of Governors must be fair, reasonable, and not arbitrary. The doctrine must align with the rule of law and the principles of democracy.
3. Governor’s Role: The Governor is an independent constitutional authority and a vital link between the Centre and the State. The Governor is not subordinate to the Union Government and is expected to act impartially, particularly in situations where the State Government is in conflict with the Union.
4. Limitations on Article 156(1): The President’s pleasure cannot be exercised capriciously or for political considerations. The Sarkaria Commission Report and the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution recommended that Governors be removed only for valid reasons. The court emphasised that ideological differences or a change in the Union Government do not justify the removal of Governors.
5. Judicial Review: The removal of Governors is subject to judicial review if it is found to be arbitrary, discriminatory, or malafide. Courts can inquire into whether the removal was based on valid and rational grounds.

Conclusion

The B.P. Singhal case is a cornerstone in the interpretation of the Doctrine of Pleasure and the constitutional position of Governors in India. The Supreme Court’s judgement struck a balance between executive discretion and constitutional accountability, ensuring that the removal of Governors is guided by the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and public interest. B.P. Singhal vs. Union of India reaffirms the supremacy of the Constitution in India’s democracy and sets a precedent for the protection of constitutional offices from arbitrary actions.