Is the removal of a Governor under Article 156 open to judicial review?

Yes. Courts can check if the removal followed the Constitution and was not arbitrary, mala fide, or based on irrelevant grounds.

Does the doctrine of pleasure make the President’s power absolute?

No. The power exists but is limited by constitutionalism, rule of law, and basic fairness.

Must reasons be linked to constitutional principles?

Yes. Reasons should relate to fitness for office and constitutional duties, not party politics or personal dislike.

Can a Governor insist on a fixed five-year tenure?

No. A Governor holds office during the President’s pleasure, but removal must still avoid arbitrariness.

What protection does the judgment give to Governors?

It creates a safeguard against arbitrary removal by making the decision reviewable on constitutional grounds.

Law Easy

31 October, 2025

1151

B.P. Singhal v. Union of India (2010) — Article 156, Doctrine of Pleasure & Judicial Review | The Law Easy

B.P. Singhal v. Union of India, (2010) 6 SCC 331

Supreme Court of India 2010 (2010) 6 SCC 331 Constitutional Law ~8 min read

Author: Gulzar Hashmi Location: India Published: 25 Oct 2025

CASE_TITLE: B.P. Singhal v. Union of India PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Article 156, doctrine of pleasure, judicial review SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Governor removal, arbitrariness, constitutionalism

PUBLISH_DATE: 2025-10-25

AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi

LOCATION: India

Slug: b-p-singhal-v-union-of-india-2010-6-scc-331

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court said: Governors serve at the President’s pleasure, but this power has limits. Removal cannot be arbitrary or political. Courts can review a removal to check if it respects the Constitution and the role of the office.

Issues

Is removal of a Governor under Article 156(1) subject to judicial review?
What limits apply to the President’s “doctrine of pleasure” in removing a Governor?
Can a removal be struck down as arbitrary or unconstitutional?

Rules

Doctrine of Pleasure

President may remove a Governor, but the power is not absolute. It must follow constitutional values.

Judicial Review

Courts can test a removal for arbitrariness, mala fides, or irrelevant considerations.

Constitutionalism

Decisions should respect office duties, neutrality, and the scheme of the Constitution.

Facts (Timeline)

2 Jul 2004 — Removals: Governors of UP, Gujarat, Haryana, and Goa were removed.

PIL filed: B.P. Singhal challenged the removals as arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Claim: Governor should normally serve 5 years; removal only for valid reasons tied to office fitness.

Union’s stand: President’s pleasure is unfettered; reasons need not be assigned.

Arguments

Petitioner (B.P. Singhal)

Term is five years unless removed for valid, constitutional reasons.
Political displeasure is not a ground; arbitrariness violates rule of law.
Courts must protect the neutrality of the Governor’s office.

Union of India

Governor holds office at the President’s pleasure.
No duty to disclose reasons; decision is executive.
Courts should not sit in appeal over political choices.

Judgment

The Court held that removal power is real but limited. A Governor may be removed, yet the decision must not be arbitrary, capricious, or based on irrelevant reasons. Such removal is open to judicial review on constitutional grounds.

Ratio

Article 156’s pleasure is controlled by constitutionalism. The office of Governor must remain neutral and stable. Where the withdrawal of pleasure is arbitrary or mala fide, courts can step in.

Why It Matters

Protects institutional balance between Union and States.
Guards the office from political purges after regime change.
Shows that even “pleasure” powers answer to the Constitution.

Key Takeaways

Reviewable

Governor removal is subject to judicial review.

Not Absolute

Doctrine of pleasure is limited by the Constitution.

Valid Reasons

Grounds must relate to office and constitutional fitness.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “SINGHAL = STOPS INSTANT, NAKED, GROUNDS-LESS AXING of a Leader.”

State the Power: Pleasure exists under Article 156.
State the Limit: No arbitrariness, no mala fides.
State the Check: Courts can review and set aside.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Scope and review of the President’s power to remove a Governor under Article 156(1).

Rule: Doctrine of pleasure limited by constitutionalism; removal decisions reviewable for arbitrariness or mala fides.

Application: Political displeasure cannot justify removal; reasons must relate to office and constitutional duties.

Conclusion: Removals are valid only when grounded in constitutionally relevant reasons; courts may intervene otherwise.

Glossary

Doctrine of Pleasure: Tenure at the will of the appointing authority; here, limited by constitutional norms.
Judicial Review: Court power to test executive action against the Constitution.
Mala Fides: Bad faith—using power for improper or irrelevant purposes.

FAQs

Courts review the legality of removal. Relief depends on facts and feasibility; the key is constitutional compliance.

No. The term is subject to pleasure, but removal must still meet constitutional standards.

Reasons should exist and be constitutionally relevant. Public disclosure may vary, but arbitrariness is not permitted.

```

Comment

Nothing for now