B.P. SINGHAL V.

UNION OF INDIA Page 1

B.P. SINGHAL V. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
(2010)6SCC331, (2010)6SCC33, 2010(5)UJ2511
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 296 of 2004 And TP (Civil) No. 663 Of 2004
Decided On: 07.05.2010
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J., S.H. Kapadia, R.V. Raveendran, B. Sudershan Reddy and P.
Sathasivam, JJ.

By
PAWAN RELEY
STUDENT OF SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST UNIVERSITY, BANGALORE

NOTE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT AND WITH ALL DUE
RESPECT THAT THEIR LORDSHIP DESERVE, THIS CASE COMMENT IS A MERE CRITIQUE. THE
AUTHOR HAS NO INTENTION TO SHOW ANY CONTEMPT TOWARDS THE HONBLE COURT OR ANY
OF ITS JUDGES OR OFFICERS.



B.P. SINGHAL V. UNION OF INDIA Page 2

ABSTRACT
The case comment here is dealt according to the FILAC method. The analysis in the present case
is made not in the way, that honble Court while deciding the matter was right or wrong, but it
missed certain essential points, and made its judgment sub-silentio, leaving scope for the
interpretation in future. Further, the analysis of each point will be made separately according to
the order of the issues raised by the court.
Key Words: FILAC; Sub-Silento; Interpretation.














B.P. SINGHAL V. UNION OF INDIA Page 3

I. FACTS OF THE CASE
In the present case, the writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in the
form of public interest litigation with the object of reinstating the Governors of the States of
Gujarat, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and Goa, who were removed by the President of India on
2.7.2004 on the advice of the Union Council of Ministers. With regard to this the petitioner
sought a direction to the Union of India to produce the entire files, documents and facts which
formed the basis of the order dated 2.7.2004 of the President of India. There was also a demand
of a writ of certiorari, quashing the removal of the four Governors. Further a writ of mandamus
was also put forth to respondents to allow the said four Governors to complete their remaining
term of five years.
1
This writ petition, raised a question of public importance involving the
interpretation of Article 156 of the Constitution, has been referred to the Constitution Bench
under Article 145 (3) of the Indian Constitution read with part IV order XXXV Rule 1 of the
Supreme Court rules, 1966.
2

In addition to this it is stated that now these rules has become obsolete and Supreme Court Rules
2013 has come into force after l9th day of August, 2014.
3

II. ISSUES RAISED FOR CONSIDERATION
The following questions were raised
(i) Whether the petition is maintainable?
(ii) What is the scope of doctrine of pleasure?
(iii) What is the position of a Governor under the Constitution?
(iv)Whether there are any express or implied limitations/restrictions upon the power under
Article 156(1) of the Constitution of India?

1
B.P. Singhal v. Union of India & Anr, MANU/SC/0350/2010 (Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2)
2
Available at < http://llbl.webs.com/Files/rulespdf.pdf> (Accessed on September 2, 2014).
3
Available at <http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=36321> (Accessed on September 2, 2014).
B.P. SINGHAL V. UNION OF INDIA Page 4

(v) Whether the removal of Governors in exercise of the doctrine of pleasure is open to judicial
review?
Each point is dealt in turn under the analysis part.
III. THE RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS APPLIED
The present case specifically emphasized on Article 156 (1) and Article 156 (3) of the Indian
Constitution. However, for the better understanding of this emphasis on other Articles was also
given. Article 153 of the Constitution provides that there shall be a Governor for each State.
Article 154 vests the executive power of the state in the Governor. Article 155 provides that the
Governor of a State shall be appointed by the President, by warrant under his hand and seal.
Article 156 relates to term of office of Governor and is extracted below:
Term of office of Governor.(1) The Governor shall hold office during the pleasure of the
President.
(2) The Governor may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office.
(3) Subject to the foregoing provisions of this article, a Governor shall hold office for a term of
five years from the date on which he enters upon his office.
Provided that a Governor shall, notwithstanding the expiration of his term, continue to hold
office until his successor enters upon his office.
4

IV. ANALYSIS OF THE PRESENT CASE
Since, the case involved the substantial question of law involving public importance related to
interpretation of the Constitution. Thus, the honble court in did not confine its opinion only one
side but took the crux and vital points from both the side and decided the matter.
The analysis in the present case is made not in the way, that honble Court while deciding the
matter was right or wrong, but it missed certain essential points, and made its judgment sub-
silentio,
5
leaving scope for the interpretation in future.

4
B.P. Singhal Case, (Paragraph 3).
B.P. SINGHAL V. UNION OF INDIA Page 5

In the present case comment, the analysis of each point will be made separately according to the
order of the issues raised by the court.
1. WHETHER THE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE?
Courts Opinion
The petitioner has no locus to maintain the petition in regard to the prayers claiming relief for the
benefit of the individual Governors. At all events, such prayers no longer survive on account of
passage of time. However, with regard to the general question of public importance referred to
the Constitution Bench, touching upon the scope of Article 156 (1) and the limitations upon the
doctrine of pleasure, the petitioner has necessary locus.
6

Contention of the Petitioner
There may be cases where the State or a public authority may act in violation of a constitutional
or statutory obligation or fail to carry out such obligation, resulting in injury to public interest or
what may conveniently be termed as public injury as distinguished from private injury. Who
would have standing to complain against such act or omission of the State or public authority?
Can any member of the public sue for judicial redress? Or is the standing limited only to a
certain class of persons?
So also if the duty is owed by the State or any public authority to a person or to a determinate
class or group of persons, it would give rise to a corresponding right in such person or
determinate class or group of persons and they would be entitled to maintain an action for
judicial redress.
7

Contention of the Respondent

5
Arnit Das v. State of Bihar, 2000(2)ACR1664(SC), AIR2000SC2264. See also, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd v. BPL
Mobile Cellular Ltd. and Ors., 2008(8)SCALE106, (2008)13SCC597; Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam and
Ors, (2009)1SCC(LS)627, [2009]1SCR593; Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. and Anr v. State of U.P. and Anr,
AIR2012SC573, JT2011(9)SC440. See also, Rajni Goyal, The Governor: Constitution Position and Political
Reality, 53 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, 505-523 (1992); Schlesinger & Joseph, A COMPARATIVE
STATE POLITICS 1870-1950 (East Lansing, Governmental Research Bureau, Michigan State University 1957 ).
6
B.P. Singhal Case, (Paragraph 11).
7
B.P. Singhal Case, (Paragraph 10).
B.P. SINGHAL V. UNION OF INDIA Page 6

The respondents while citing S.P. Gupta v. UOI,
8
submitted that a writ petition by way of PIL, to
secure relief for the Governors who have been removed from office, is not maintainable as none
of the aggrieved persons had approached the court for relief and the writ petitioner has no locus
to maintain a petition seeking relief on their behalf. It is pointed out that Governors do not
belong to a helpless section of society which by reason of poverty, ignorance, disability or other
disadvantage, is not capable of seeking relief.
9

Analysis of the Author
In the present neither petitioner nor court took into consideration of the violation of the
fundamental rights of the Governor. No contention for the same, as removal being violation of
right of right to reputation
10
or right to equality, was raised by anyone.
2. WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF DOCTRINE OF PLEASURE?
3. WHAT IS THE POSITION OF A GOVERNOR UNDER THE CONSTITUTION?
4. WHETHER THERE ARE ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED LIMITATIONS/RESTRICTIONS UPON THE
POWER UNDER ARTICLE 156(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA?
The analysis of these three contentions will be made all together for the better understanding of
the case. With reference to these certain English and Indian Case were cited. Black's Dictionary
was also cited for defining the 'Pleasure Appointment' as the assignment of someone to
employment that can be taken away at any time, with no requirement for notice or hearing.
11

However, this definition was not taken into consideration while deciding the final scope of
Doctrine of Pleasure.
Court Stated that, there is a distinction between the doctrine of pleasure as it existed in a feudal
set-up and the doctrine of pleasure in a democracy governed by rule of law. In a nineteenth
century feudal set-up unfettered power and discretion of the Crown was not an alien concept.

8
S.P. Gupta v. UOI, MANU/SC/0080/1981.
9
B.P. Singhal Case, (Paragraph 10).
10
Om Prakash Chautala v. Kanwar Bhan and Ors., 2014(1)CDR212(SC), 2014(3)CTC310

11
B.P. Singhal Case, (Paragraph 12.5).
B.P. SINGHAL V. UNION OF INDIA Page 7

However, in a democracy governed by Rule of Law, where arbitrariness in any form is
eschewed, no Government or Authority has the right to do what it pleases. The doctrine of
pleasure does not mean a license to act arbitrarily, capriciously or whimsically. It is presumed
that discretionary powers conferred in absolute and unfettered terms on any public authority will
necessarily and obviously be exercised reasonably and for public good.
12

There was a contention that, as limitation is given Under Article 311 of the Constitution, the
same limitations should be applicable for Governor. While countering this point court stated
that:
The Constitution refers to offices held during the pleasure of the President (without
restrictions), offices held during the pleasure of the President (with restrictions) and also
appointments to which the said doctrine is not applicable. The Articles in the Constitution of
India which refer to the holding of office during the pleasure of the President without any
restrictions or limitations are Article 75(2) relating to ministers, Article 76(4) relating to
Attorney General and Article 156(1) relating to Governors. Similarly
Article 164(1) and 165(3)provides that the Ministers (in the States) and Advocate General for
the State shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor. Article 310 read with
Article 311 provide an example of the application of 'at pleasure' doctrine subject to
restrictions.
13
Thus, it is not applicable in the present case.
The petitioner relied upon the Report of the Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State Relations and
the Report of the National Commission to Review the working of the Constitution in support of
his contention that removal of a Governor should be by an order disclosing reasons, that the
Governor should be given an opportunity to explain his position and that the removal should be
only for compelling reasons, thereby stressing the need to provide security of tenure for the
Governors.
14

This contention was not accepted by the Court. Court stated that, these recommendations
howsoever logical, or deserving consideration and acceptance, remain recommendations. They

12
B.P. Singhal Case, (Paragraph 13).
13
B.P. Singhal Case, (Paragraph 18).
14
B.P. Singhal Case, (Paragraph 31).
B.P. SINGHAL V. UNION OF INDIA Page 8

cannot override the express provisions of the Constitution as they stand. Nor can they assist in
interpreting Article 156. The very fact that such recommendations are made, shows that the
position under the existing Constitutional provisions is otherwise. They are suggestions to be
considered by those who can amend the Constitution. They do not assist in interpreting the
existing provisions of the Constitution.
15

The court with regard to this issue finally stated that, the removal of a Governor can only be for
compelling reasons which is something to do with his capacity to function as a Governor. These
reasons can be the physical or mental disability, acts of corruption or moral turpitude or
behaviour unbecoming of a Governor.
16

Analysis of the Author
After viewing the rationale of the Court, it will not be illogical to partially agree with the
reasoning given by court. One may agree with the reasoning, that removal of the Governor
should for the compelling reasons. Further, there should not be any whimsical or capricious
grounds for removal. However, one may take deviation from the same, where court stated that
opportunity of being heard will not be given to Governor while removing him. It is agreed, that
the doctrine of fair hearing is not itself absolute in nature and subject to some reasonable
restrictions.
17
However, it is to be noted that these restrictions should be fair, just and
reasonable.
18
As, it was stated by the Court in the present case itself, that:
Governor is not an employee or servant in any sense of the term. It is no doubt true that the
Governor is appointed by the President which means in effect and substance the Government of
India, but that is only a mode of appointment and it does not make the Governor an employee or
servant of the Government of India.
19


15
B.P. Singhal Case, (Paragraph 34).
16
B.P. Singhal Case, (Paragraph 40 and Paragraph 41).
17
A.V. DICEY, THE LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION 422 (Universal Law Publishing, 10th ed. 2012). See also, B. SHIVA
RAO, THE FRAMING OF THE CONSTITUTION SELECT DOCUMENTS 243 (Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vol.
6 2006); National Commission on working of the Constitution 2000).
18
In Re: Special Reference No. 1 of 2012, (2012) 4 CompLJ225(SC). See also, Rajesh and Ors. v.: Rajbir Singh and
Ors., (2013)9SCC54. See also, D. D. BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (Lexis Nexis
Buuterworths Wadhwa 8th ed. 2009); FAZAL KARIM , JUDICIAL REVIEW OF PUBLIC ACTION (Universal Law
Publishing Co. 2006).
19
B.P. Singhal Case, (Paragraph 24) while citing Hargovind Pant v. Raghukul Tilak (Dr.) MANU/SC/0457/1979.
B.P. SINGHAL V. UNION OF INDIA Page 9

If Governor post is so independent, then why court in the present case, did not go for the
purposive construction while interpreting the provisions of the Constitution, as it did in the
Second Judge case,
20
and third Judge case,
21
and include the applicability of the rule of fair
hearing for the removal of Governors too. The Court should have looked into the practicality of
this grievance instead of basing of opinion in distinction between the need for a cause for the
removal, and the need to disclose the cause for removal.
22
Since, the inception of the
Constitution no Governor has moved to the Court, if he was removed by the Central
Government. It may be because of political pressure or some other reasons. If the cases were
filed for the removal, those were in the form of public interest litigation but not in the personal
capacity of any of the Governor. It is submitted that, if there is no disclosure of the reason, there
is no purpose of the need of the reason. Because, justice should not only be done but manifestly
and undoubtedly be seen to be done.
23

Further deviations may take place as Court stated that corruption can be the ground for the
removal, however, it was not stated that, whether, the charges of the corruption charges should
be proved or not. If these are merely the charges, on the basis of which he can be removed, then,
it smashes the independency of the post of Governor.
5. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF WITHDRAWAL OF PRESIDENT'S PLEASURE
The Court, with regard to this, stated that it has a power of judicial review. This was the
traditional English view was that prerogative powers of the Crown conferred unfettered
discretion which could not be questioned in courts.
24
It was stated by the respondent that Article
74 (2) of the Constitution bars the Court from hearing this matter. However, court countered this

20
Supreme Court Advocate on record v. UOI, (1993) 4 SCC 441.
21
In Re Presidential Reference, AIR 1999 SC 1
22
B.P. Singhal Case, (Paragraph 42)
23
Nissan Motors India Private Limited (NMIPL) v.The Competition Commission of India (CCI), (2014)5MLJ267.
See also, Justice P.D. Dinakaran v. Hon'ble Judges Inquiry Committee and Ors., AIR2011SC3711,
113(2012)CLT215(SC). See also, GRANVILLE AUSTIN, WORKING A DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION: A HISTORY OF
THE INDIAN EXPERIENCE 577 (OUP 2004); H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA 2036 (Universal
Publishing Co., 4
th
ed. Vol. 2, 2008)
24
B.P. Singhal Case, (Paragraph 43). See also, Council of Civil Service Union v. Minister for the Civil
Service, 1985 AC 374. See also, W.R. Wade & C.F. Forsyth, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 20 (Oxford University Press
8th ed. 2000); JAGADISH SWARUP, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (L.M. Singhvi, Modern Law Publication 2nd ed. 2008);
KARON MONAGHAN, EQUALITY LAW (Oxford University Press 1st ed. 2007).
B.P. SINGHAL V. UNION OF INDIA Page 10

point while stating that, Article 74(2) merely bars an inquiry into the question whether any, and
if so what, advice was tendered by the Council of Ministers to the President but does not bar the
scrutiny of the material on the basis of which the President has made the order.
25

The Court stated that judicial review is permissible in regard to administrative action, legislations
and constitutional amendments. But the extent or scope of judicial review for one will be
different from the scope of judicial review for other. Mala fides may be a ground for judicial
review of administrative action but is not a ground for judicial review of legislations or
constitutional amendments. For withdrawal of pleasure in the case of a Minister or an Attorney
General, loss of confidence may be a relevant ground. The ideology of the Minister or Attorney
General being out of sync with the policies or ideologies of the Government may also be a
ground. On the other hand, for withdrawal of pleasure in the case of a Governor, loss of
confidence or the Governor's views being out of sync with that the Union Government will not
be grounds for withdrawal of the pleasure. The reasons for withdrawal are wider in the case of
Ministers and Attorney-General, when compared to Governors. As a result, the judicial review of
withdrawal of pleasure, is limited in the case of a Governor whereas virtually nil in the case of a
Minister or an Attorney General.
The reasoning given by the court in this issue was absolutely fair, just and reasonable.
V. CONCLUSION
The writ petition was disposed of by the Honble Court while summarizing the conclusion as
under:
(i) 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.

25
S.R. Bommai v. UOI, MANU/SC/0444/1994: 1994 (3) SCC 1. See also, 1. A J Julius, 'Basic Structure and the
Value of Equality', 31(4) PHILOSOPHY AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS 344, 321-355 (2003); Ashoke K.Sen, Are Governors
Agents of the Centre? Role of Governors in the Emerging Pattern of Centre-State Relations in India, 12 (23)
ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY 928, 918-91 (2006).

B.P. SINGHAL V. UNION OF INDIA Page 11

(ii) 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. The compelling reasons are not restricted to
those enumerated by the petitioner (that is physical/mental disability, corruption and
behaviour unbecoming of a Governor) but are of a wider amplitude. What would be
compelling reasons would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
(iii) 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 favored by the new government.
(iv) 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,
malafide, 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 malafide, 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.
26

Author here is not simpatico with the first conclusion, as it is aforementioned, that if there is
no disclosure of the reason, there is no purpose of the need of the reason. Because, justice
should not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.
Second conclusion leaves gap for the interpretation in future and becomes sub-silentio. It
stated that physical/mental disability, corruption and behaviour unbecoming of a Governor
can be the ground of removal. However, it did not state that whether charges of all these
grounds need to be proved.\

26
B.P. Singhal Case, (Paragraph 50).
B.P. SINGHAL V. UNION OF INDIA Page 12

Author agrees with the third conclusion however, have some reservation for the fourth
conclusion because of it not following the practicality stated in the analysis part.


















B.P. SINGHAL V. UNION OF INDIA Page 13


BIBLIOGRAPHY
1) LIST OF BOOKS
1. A.V. DICEY, THE LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION (Universal Law Publishings, 10
th
Ed. 2012)
2. B.SHIVA RAO, THE FRAMING OF THE CONSTITUTION SELECT DOCUMENTS 243 (Universal Law
Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vol. 6 2006); National Commission On Working Of The Constitution
2000)
3. D. D. BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (Lexis Nexis Buuterworths
Wadhwa 8th Ed. 2009)
4. FAZAL KARIM , JUDICIAL REVIEW OF PUBLIC ACTION (Universal Law Publishing Co. 2006).
5. GRANVILLE AUSTIN, WORKING A DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION: A HISTORY OF THE INDIAN
EXPERIENCE 577-580 (Oup 2004).
6. H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA 2036 (Universal Publishing Co., 4
th
Ed. Vol.
2, 2008)
7. H.W.R. Wade & C.F. Forsyth, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 20 (Oxford University Press 8th Ed.
2000).
8. JAGADISH SWARUP, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (L.M. Singhvi, Modern Law Publication 2nd Ed.
2008)
9. KARON MONAGHAN, EQUALITY LAW (Oxford University Press 1st Ed. 2007).
2) LAW JOURNALS
1. A J Julius, 'Basic Structure and the Value of Equality', 31(4) PHILOSOPHY AND PUBLIC
AFFAIRS, 321-355 (2003).
B.P. SINGHAL V. UNION OF INDIA Page 14

2. Ashoke K.Sen, Are Governors Agents of the Centre? Role of Governors in the Emerging
Pattern of Centre-State Relations in India, 12 (23) ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY, 918-91
(2006).
3. Rajni Goyal, The Governor: Constitution Position and Political Reality, 53 THE INDIAN
JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, 505-523 (1992).
4. Schlesinger & Joseph, A COMPARATIVE STATE POLITICS 1870-1950 (East Lansing,
Governmental Research Bureau, Michigan State University 1957 ).
3) LAW LEXICON
1. BRYAN A. GARNER, BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (Thomson West Publishing
Co., 8th ed. 2004).