Court emphasizes limited review of Governor's removal, dismisses PIL for removed Governors.

The court held that the writ petition, filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to secure relief for removed Governors, was not maintainable as the aggrieved Governors had not approached the court for relief. The court emphasized the limitations on the doctrine of pleasure, highlighting that the Governor holds office at the President's pleasure but removal must be for valid reasons. It reiterated the Governor's constitutional position as an independent office-holder and emphasized the limited judicial review of the President's removal decisions to prevent arbitrary actions. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, and the related Transfer Petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition.
2. Scope of the "doctrine of pleasure".
3. Position of a Governor under the Constitution.
4. Limitations/restrictions upon the power under Article 156(1) of the Constitution of India.
5. Judicial review of withdrawal of President's pleasure.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

(i) Maintainability of the writ petition
The respondents contended that the writ petition, filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to secure relief for the removed Governors, was not maintainable since none of the aggrieved Governors had approached the court for relief. The court referenced S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India, emphasizing that a member of the public can maintain an action challenging the legality of an act or omission causing public injury, but if the primarily injured party does not seek relief, a secondary public injury cannot be the basis for action. The court concluded that while the petitioner lacked locus to maintain the petition for individual Governors' relief, he had the necessary locus regarding the general question of public importance related to Article 156(1).

(ii) Scope of the doctrine of pleasure
The doctrine of pleasure, originating in English law, implies that public servants hold their positions at the discretion of the Crown, terminable at any time without cause. However, in a democracy governed by the Rule of Law, this doctrine does not permit arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical actions. The court noted that the doctrine of pleasure in India is not absolute and is subject to constitutional and statutory restrictions.

(iii) Position of a Governor under the Constitution
The Governor is an integral part of the state's legislature, vested with executive powers and significant constitutional functions. The court reiterated that the Governor is not an employee or agent of the Union Government but holds an independent constitutional office. The Governor's dual role includes being the constitutional head of the state and a vital link between the Union and State Governments. The court emphasized that Governors should be apolitical and not subject to the Union Government's ideology or policies.

(iv) Limitations/restrictions upon the power under Article 156(1) of the Constitution of India
The court examined whether Article 156(1) is subject to express or implied limitations. It concluded that while the Governor holds office during the pleasure of the President, this power must be exercised for valid reasons and not arbitrarily. The court rejected the petitioner's contention that the doctrine of pleasure under Article 156(1) is restricted by clause (3) of Article 156, which provides a five-year term for Governors. The court also reviewed recommendations from the Sarkaria Commission and the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, but noted that these recommendations cannot override the express provisions of the Constitution.

(v) Judicial review of withdrawal of President's pleasure
The court held that while the President's power to remove a Governor under Article 156(1) does not require assigning reasons or giving notice, it must be exercised for valid reasons. The court acknowledged the limited scope of judicial review, stating that it can interfere if the removal is arbitrary, capricious, or mala fide. The court emphasized that the President's decision should not be based on the Union Government's loss of confidence or the Governor's ideological differences with the central government.

Conclusion:
1. The Governor holds office during the pleasure of the President, removable without reason or notice.
2. The power under Article 156(1) must be exercised for valid and compelling reasons, not arbitrarily.
3. Governors cannot be removed for being out of sync with the Union Government's policies or ideologies.
4. Removal decisions are subject to limited judicial review, ensuring they are not arbitrary, capricious, or mala fide.

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, and the related Transfer Petition was dismissed.

---