B P Singhal v Union of India
Rule established
The doctrine of pleasure in Article 156(1) is not subject to any limitations and requires no reasons, but the power cannot be exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or for irrelevant or extraneous reasons. A change of government at the Centre is not by itself a ground for removing a Governor.
Facts
- Article 156(1) provides that the Governor holds office during the pleasure of the President, while Art.156(3) provides that he shall hold office for a term of five years.
- After a change of government at the Centre, the Governors of several States were removed before their terms expired.
- No reasons were assigned for the removals.
- The petitioner contended that the five year term in Art.156(3) conferred security of tenure, that the pleasure could be withdrawn only for cause, and that removals prompted by a change of government were arbitrary and violated Art.14.
- The Union contended that the pleasure doctrine is untrammelled and that its exercise is not justiciable at all.
Issue
- What is the nature of the President's pleasure under Art.156(1), and is its withdrawal open to judicial review?
Held
- The Court struck a middle position. The doctrine of pleasure in Art.156(1) is not subject to any limitations or restrictions, so the Governor has no right to be heard before removal and no reasons need be assigned; the five year term in Art.156(3) is subject to the pleasure and does not create an enforceable tenure. But the power is conferred by the Constitution and, like every such power, cannot be exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or on wholly irrelevant or extraneous grounds. The Court held expressly that a change of government at the Centre is not a ground for removal, that a Governor cannot be removed merely because he was appointed by a previous government, holds different views, or is out of sympathy with the policies of the government of the day, and that removal must not be a matter of political patronage. Where the aggrieved Governor makes out a prima facie case of arbitrariness, the Court may call for the material on which the decision was taken, though it will not substitute its own view for that of the President and the relief available is limited.
Ratio Decidendi
The absence of a stated ground is not the same as the absence of any limit. Every power under the Constitution is held for a purpose and is subject to the discipline of non-arbitrariness. The Governor's office is a constitutional office and not a political appointment at will, and its holder is expected to act impartially between the Union and the State. Treating removal as an incident of a change of government would convert the office into a partisan one and defeat the reason it was insulated by a stated term at all.
How to use it in an exam
- The definitive statement on the tenure of a Governor. State the balance in one sentence: no right to reasons and no hearing, but no unlimited power either.
- Note the important structural consequence: because the Governor holds office at pleasure while a Judge does not, his independence rests on convention and on this decision rather than on a protected tenure.
- Contrast the removal of the Chairman or a member of a Public Service Commission under Art.317, which requires a reference to the Supreme Court whose advice is binding, and the removal of a Chief Election Commissioner under Art.324(5), which is on the like grounds as a Judge. The comparison shows how little Art.156 protects.
- Read with Samsher Singh v State of Punjab 1974 and Nabam Rebia v Deputy Speaker 2016 on the Governor's role, and with the Sarkaria Commission recommendation that a Governor be appointed in consultation with the Chief Minister and not be removed before the end of his term save in exceptional circumstances.
- In a problem question, the practical advice is that the removal is challengeable only if the petitioner can raise a prima facie case of arbitrariness, which usually depends on the sequence of events rather than on any stated reason.
Source
Source: (2010) 6 SCC 331; AIR 2010 SC 3081; Constitution Bench of five Judges; the definitive statement on the tenure of a Governor; citation and bench checked against Indian Kanoon and reported sources, audit of 12 August 2026
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.