B.P. Singhal vs Union of India (2010)
🧑⚖️ B.P. Singhal v. Union of India (2010)
Citation: (2010) 6 SCC 331
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice R.V. Raveendran, Justice P. Sathasivam, and Justice B. Sudershan Reddy
🔹 Background of the Case
The case was filed by B.P. Singhal, a senior advocate and former Member of Parliament, challenging the arbitrary removal of Governors by the Central Government.
In 2004, the newly formed UPA Government at the Centre removed four Governors appointed by the previous NDA Government, including the Governors of Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh.
B.P. Singhal filed a public interest petition challenging these removals as being politically motivated and violating the constitutional safeguards under Article 155 and 156 of the Indian Constitution.
🔹 Key Constitutional Provisions Involved
Article 155: Appointment of Governors by the President.
Article 156: Term of office of Governor — serves "during the pleasure of the President".
Article 74: The President acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
🔹 Issues Before the Court
Can the Union Government remove a Governor at will (“pleasure of the President”)?
Is such removal subject to judicial review?
Does removing Governors due to political differences violate constitutional morality or federalism?
🔹 Arguments by B.P. Singhal (Petitioner)
The phrase “pleasure of the President” under Article 156(1) does not mean absolute or arbitrary power.
Removal of Governors based solely on political grounds violates the principles of constitutional democracy and federalism.
Governors should be independent constitutional authorities, not agents of the ruling party.
Doctrine of pleasure should be exercised in accordance with constitutional values and is not immune from judicial review.
🔹 Arguments by Union of India (Respondent)
Article 156 gives the President (i.e., the Central Government) absolute discretion to remove Governors.
The Governor holds office at the pleasure of the President, which does not require any reasons.
Political changes at the Centre justify a review of gubernatorial appointments.
Governors are appointed and removed by the Centre, and the judiciary should not interfere in this executive function.
🔹 Supreme Court’s Judgment
The Supreme Court delivered a balanced and nuanced judgment.
✅ Key Rulings:
Doctrine of Pleasure is Not Absolute
Although Article 156 uses the term "pleasure of the President", the power cannot be exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably.
Governor is a Constitutional Authority
The Governor is not an employee of the Union Government.
His office demands independence and neutrality.
Removal Must Have Valid Grounds
While the Government can remove a Governor before the completion of the 5-year term, it must do so for valid and compelling reasons.
Political differences or change in government are not valid grounds for removal.
Judicial Review is Permissible
The President’s pleasure under Article 156 is subject to judicial review.
However, the Court cannot reinstate a removed Governor but can examine whether the removal was malicious, arbitrary, or unconstitutional.
Federalism and Constitutional Morality Must Be Upheld
Arbitrary removal undermines federalism.
Such removals erode the neutrality expected of the Governor's office.
🔹 Conclusion of the Court
The removal of a Governor should not be based solely on political reasons.
A change in the central government does not justify automatic dismissal of Governors appointed by the previous regime.
The Union Government's power is not unfettered and must be exercised in good faith and in the interest of constitutional governance.
🔹 Significance of the Judgment
| Aspect | Importance |
|---|---|
| ✅ Strengthened Federalism | Reinforced that States are not subservient to the Centre. |
| ✅ Governor’s Independence | Confirmed that Governors are not political tools. |
| ✅ Limits Executive Discretion | Restricted arbitrary removal of Governors by Centre. |
| ✅ Judicial Oversight | Introduced judicial review into the removal process. |
🔹 Related Case References
Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974)
Held that the President/Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Strong affirmation of federalism and limitations on Centre’s powers in dismissing State governments.
🔹 Final Takeaway
In B.P. Singhal v. Union of India (2010), the Supreme Court held that Governors cannot be removed arbitrarily by the Central Government and such removals are subject to constitutional scrutiny.
This case remains a milestone judgment in ensuring:
The neutrality of constitutional posts,
The preservation of federalism, and
Checks on executive power.
RELATED Blog
0 comments