B.P. SINGHAL Vs UNION OF INDIA

B.P. SINGHAL Vs UNION OF INDIA

Author: Vishakha Yadav, DES’s SHRI NAVALMAL FIRODIA LAW COLLEGE, PUNE

Edited by: Ritesh Singh Shekhawat 

ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case of B.P. Singhal Vs Union of India and Anr. is a landmark judgment in Indian history. The case started as PIL under a writ petition of article 32. The governors of four states i.e. Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh were removed from power by the President under the advice of his council of ministers practicing the doctrine of pleasure on July 2, 2004. This evokes questions about whether it was reasonable to remove the government officers without any constructive basis. Later the judgment was delivered that, the president’s practice of pleasure remains unquestionable but there should be reasonable ground for such removal. The final judgment was delivered on May 7, 2010

Keywords: Article 153, Article 154, Article 156, Writ Petition, Certiorari, Mandamus, Governor, Doctrine of Pleasure, Doctrine of Checks and Balances

CASE DETAILS

      i)          Judgement Cause Title / Case Name

B.P Singhal Vs Union of India and Anr.

    ii)          Case Number

Civil petition no. 663 of 2004

   iii)          Judgement Date

7th May 2010

   iv)          Court

Supreme Court of India

     v)          Quorum / Constitution of Bench

5 Judges

   vi)          Author / Name of Judges

Author: J. R. V. Raveendran

Judges: CJI K.G. Balakrishnan, J. S.H. Kapadia, J R.V. Raveendran, J. P Sathasivam, J. B Sudershan Reddy,  

 vii)          Citation

B.P. Singhal vs Union of India & Anr on 7 May 2010

viii)          Legal Provisions Involved

i)                Article 155 of the Indian Constitution

ii)              Article 156 (1) of the Indian Constitution

iii)             Article 156 (3) of the Indian Constitution

iv)             Article 74 (1) of the Indian Constitution

v)               Doctrine of Pleasure

vi)             Doctrine of Checks and Balance

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

Procedural Background of the Case

  1. The PIL introduced as a way of writ petition sought three things as a part of justice:
  • Documents and facts which formed the basis of the order dated 2.7.2004 of the President of India.
  • A writ of Certiorari quashing the removal of four governors by the president.
  • A writ of Mandamus demanding the respondents to allow the continuation of the remaining term of the four governors.
  1. The arguments and proceedings were carried out in the Supreme Court of India by a five judge’ bench.
  2. Both parties argued with valid reasoning. The petitioner’s counsel argued that practicing pleasure on the governor cannot be done arbitrarily and that it should have a reasonable ground. If the president deems any of the candidates for governor has later become unfit for holding the office, then he shall state such reasons both with due notice as well as orally so that the eliminated officer is aware of his grounds for removal or elimination.
  3. The defendant’s senior learned counsel thought that the council of ministers aids in the decision-making of the President and that the same cannot be enquired in any court as Article 74 of the Indian constitution has no proven protocol for such cases.
  4. He further raised the question of whether the writ petition is maintainable in the court of law as the governor is a privileged officer and does not belong to any weaker societal section.
  5. Questions and issues were raised from both the sides of argument such as if there are any express or implied limitations on the power of the President, the position of the governor under the Indian Constitution, the scope of the doctrine of pleasure, and whether the doctrine of pleasure is open for judicial review.
  6. The judgment of the court on the matter remained both balanced as well as ambiguous as it did not state the absolute scope and direction for the doctrine of pleasure but it stated that a governor cannot be terminated from service without reasonable nexus.

Factual Background of the Case

  • In the case B.P Singhal Vs Union of India a writ petition was filed under Public Interest Litigation.
  • According to Articles 155 and 156 of the Indian constitution, “Governor” is chosen by the president under by warrant under his hand and seal.
  • Article 153 of the Indian Constitution states that every state shall have a governor working under the president’s pleasure.
  • The governor may resign before his term of 5 years expires by writing to the President under his hand.
  • In the states of Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Goa, and Gujarat the governors of the state were discontinued from their service by the president on the advice of its council of ministers on 2nd July 2004.
  • The discontinuation of the governor’s term was practiced within the power of the doctrine of pleasure by the president.
  • The doctrine of pleasure gives the crown absolute power to discontinue the term of any government officer without any concrete reasoning. However, this doctrine’s application is restrictive in India.
  • The petition was handled by a bench of two judges and was later handed over to a constitutional bench of 5 judges namely P Sathasivam, B. Sudershan Reddy, S.H. Kapadia, R.V. Raveendran, K.G. Balakrishnan.

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

  • Whether the petition under is maintainable?
  • What is the scope of the “doctrine of pleasure”?
  • What is the position of a Governor under the Constitution?
  • Whether there are any express or implied limitations/restrictions upon the power under Article 156(1) of the Constitution of India?
  • Whether the removal of Governors in the exercise of the doctrine of pleasure is open to judicial review?

PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

  • The counsel for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that the governor of the state holds a high position in the constitutional office carrying out important constitutional functions and duties.
  • Even after the governor is appointed by the president at his pleasure, this does not make the governor an employee or servant of the Indian Union.
  • The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the independent office of the governor is not subservient or subordinate to the Union’s office due to which he is not accountable to the Indian union for the manner in which he carries out his duties and functions as a governor of the state.
  •  The petitioner’s council was further of the opinion that the governor should be let continue their term of five years as even though the governor functions under the pleasure of the president, he cannot be discontinued from his office in the absence of exceptional and rare reasons but using only the following circumstances and constitutional norms:
  • Under the purview of Article 156 of the Indian constitution, removal of presidential pleasure cannot be an unfettered discretion or capricious, Malahide, arbitrary, or unreasonable.
  • The power for removal should be only brought into action if there is a reason demonstrating misbehavior, incapacity, or impropriety.
  • Before the removal of the governor in the exercise of power, the principle of natural justice should be taken into consideration. The same should be issued with a show cause notice stating the reasons for the proposed removal and also an opportunity to be heard should be given in respect of those reasons.
  • The removal should be by a speaking order so as to inform him and the public of the reasoning for considering the person unfit for the continuation of the governor’s post.
  • It was argued by the senior counsel for the petitioner that to ensure the governor’s independence and effective functioning, certain limitations should be necessarily set upon the power of removal of the governor under Article 156 with due regard to the Constitution of India.

 RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

  • The counsels for Respondent submitted that the power of removal conferred upon by the constitution as under Article 156(3) is absolute and unquestionable in every matter as there are no protocols set up on this provision of the constitution making it rigid.
  • Further it was also added that the advice given by the council of ministers cannot be questioned in any court of inquiry with regard to article 74(2) of the Indian constitution.
  • The Attorney General raised the question of whether the writ petition of Certiorari and mandamus is maintainable as the governors who were removed from power on 2.7.2004 have absolutely no trouble accepting the Union’s decision than a Public Interest Litigation cannot be filed by such reasoning.
  • Also, it was further said that Governors hold a position of power and do not belong to the marginalized or weaker section of the society, thus a PIL cannot be filed on their behalf further raising a question of the maintainability of the writ petition.

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

Article 21: – “Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

Article 155: – Article 155 of the Indian Constitution states that a Governor shall be appointed/elected by the President by his permit under hand and seal.

Article 156(1): – Article 156(1) of the Indian constitution states that a governor shall hold the office at the President’s pleasure.

Article 156(3): – Article 156(3) in relation to Article 156(1) and Article 156(2) states that a governor shall hold the office for a tenure of five years from the date on which he enters the office.

Article 74(1): – Article 74(1) States that there shall be a council of ministers in the president’s office to advise and aid the president in state matters, who shall in the exercise of his purposes, act following such advice.

Doctrine of pleasure: The doctrine of Pleasure dates back to English law. This doctrine gives the crown the power to conclude any officer’s term in office without giving a constructive reason. However, this doctrine has restrictive application in India.

Doctrine of checks and balances: – The idea of separation of power forms the base of the doctrine of checks and balances which was proposed by French philosopher Montesquieu. This doctrine states that one branch of government can keep a check on the other branch of government. This was done to avoid arbitrary power practice.

JUDGEMENT

RATIO DECIDENDI

  • The final judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the matter was delivered on May 7, 2010. It was delivered that the governor of any state holds a position similar to that of the president. He carries out the function of a twin institutional agent, promulgating laws and ordinances when no one is in power and he acts as a medium of coordination between the Union of India and the state. He is an independent body and not a representative of any political party or any other body. Therefore, he cannot be forced to act according to the president’s pleasure although his pleasure is present. Only on reasonable nexus president is allowed the removal of any governor. Moreover, no state institution is provided with the right to question any of the president’s pleasure. For the president’s pleasure even if he feels that a governor is against any of his ideologies then too, the governor shall function as an independent body and his ideology cannot be questioned or removed from power because of such ideology, thought process, or independent thinking.

CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Case of B.P. Singhal Vs Union of India and Anr. is quite ambiguous in its judgment delivery. The constitution of India confers the president his pleasure of removing any person from the official body but the removal of such pleasure shall have some kind of rationality. Although PILs are filed publicly where the interest of the public is affected, here the removal of governors of 4 states was a matter of public interest and therefore be taken into consideration. Arguments delivered on both sides were equally efficient. Article 156 of the Indian constitution is prevalent in certain loopholes due to which ambiguity might be created during the judgment delivery. The ambit of the president’s pleasure should be stated clearly. In my opinion, a governor is appointed or elected by the President, in the same way, dismissal of a governor’s power should be entirely left on the president’s part without any judicial intervention, and if such power is not provided to the president, he should disperse such reasons to the concerned officer directly without any obstruction.

REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred

  1. Ranji Thomas vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 9 February 1990, (Supreme Court of India 2010).
  2. State of Karnataka v. Union of India [1977 SCC 608

Important Statutes Referred

  1. NONE

References