Article 156 – Term of the Office of the Governor

Introduction :-  Article 156 describe the term of office of the Governor at how much time the governor can stay in its office  A governor  holds office more than 5 years tills the date form the date of the comencement of the oath , He /she is privledge to be in his office untill his/her sucessor comes aand takes the charge of the office

Definition :- (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 for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office

(4) Provided that a Governor shall, notwithstanding the expiration of his term, continue to hold office until his successor 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.
Pleasure of the President: The Pleasure Doctrine has its origin in English law, with reference to the tenure of public servants under the Crown. 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. 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 licence 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. It is of some relevance to note that the ‘Doctrine of Pleasure’ in its absolute unrestricted application does not exist in India. The said doctrine is severely curtailed in the case of government employment, as will be evident from clause (2) of article 310 and clauses (1) and (2) of article 311. Even in regard to cases falling within the proviso to clause (2) of article 311, the application of the doctrine is not unrestricted, but moderately restricted in the sense that the circumstances mentioned therein should exist for its operation.3

Constitution of India provides for three different types of tenure: (i) Those who hold office during the pleasure of the President (or Governor); (ii) Those who hold office during the pleasure of the President (or Governor), subject to restrictions; (iii) Those who hold office for specified terms with immunity against removal, except by impeachment, who are not subject to the doctrine of pleasure. Constituent Assembly debates clearly show that after elaborate discussions, varying levels of protection against removal were adopted in relation to different kinds of offices. We may conveniently enumerate them: (i) Offices to which the doctrine of pleasure applied absolutely without any restrictions (Ministers, Governors, Attorney-General and Advocate-General); (ii) Offices to which doctrine of pleasure applied with restrictions (Members of defence service, Members of civil service of the Union, Members of an All-India service, holders of posts connected with defence or any civil post under the Union, Members of a civil service of a State and holders of civil posts under the State); and (iii) Offices to which the doctrine of pleasure does not apply at all (President, Judges of Supreme Court, Comptroller & Auditor General of India, Judges of the High Court, and Election Commissioners). Having regard to the constitutional scheme, it is not possible to mix up or extend the type of protection against removal granted to one category of offices to another category.1

The doctrine of pleasure as originally envisaged in England was a prerogative power which was unfettered. It meant that the holder of an office under pleasure could be removed at any time, without notice, without assigning cause, and without there being a need for any cause. But where rule of law prevails, there is nothing like unfettered discretion or unaccountable action. The degree of need for reason may vary. The degree of scrutiny during judicial review may vary. But the need for reason exists. As a result when the Constitution of India provides that some offices will be held during the pleasure of the President, without any express limitations or restrictions, it should however necessarily be read as being subject to the “fundamentals of constitutionalism”. Therefore in a constitutional set up, when an office is held during the pleasure of any Authority, and if no limitations or restrictions are placed on the “at pleasure” doctrine, it means that the holder of the office can be removed by the authority at whose pleasure he holds office, at any time, without notice and without assigning any cause. The doctrine of pleasure, however, is not a licence to act with unfettered discretion, to act arbitrarily, whimsically, or capriciously. It does not dispense with the need for a cause for withdrawal of the pleasure. In other words, “at pleasure” doctrine enables the removal of a person holding office at the pleasure of an Authority, summarily, without any obligation to give any notice or hearing to the person removed, and without any obligation to assign any reasons or disclose any cause for the removal, or withdrawal of pleasure. But, the withdrawal of pleasure cannot be at the sweet will, whim and fancy of the Authority, but can only be for valid reasons.1

The doctrine of pleasure as originally envisaged in England was a prerogative power which was unfettered. It meant that the holder of an office under pleasure could be removed at any time, without notice, without assigning cause, and without there being a need for any cause. But where rule of law prevails, there is nothing like unfettered discretion or unaccountable action. The degree of need for reason may vary. The degree of scrutiny during judicial review may vary. But the need for reason exists. As a result when the Constitution of India provides that some offices will be held during the pleasure of the President, without any express limitations or restrictions, it should however necessarily be read as being subject to the “fundamentals of constitutionalism”. Therefore in a constitutional set up, when an office is held during the pleasure of any Authority, and if no limitations or restrictions are placed on the “at pleasure” doctrine, it means that the holder of the office can be removed by the authority at whose pleasure he holds office, at any time, without notice and without assigning any cause. The doctrine of pleasure, however, is not a licence to act with unfettered discretion, to act arbitrarily, whimsically, or capriciously. It does not dispense with the need for a cause for withdrawal of the pleasure. In other words, “at pleasure” doctrine enables the removal of a person holding office at the pleasure of an Authority, summarily, without any obligation to give any notice or hearing to the person removed, and without any obligation to assign any reasons or disclose any cause for the removal, or withdrawal of pleasure. But, the withdrawal of pleasure cannot be at the sweet will, whim and fancy of the Authority, but can only be for valid reasons.

Conclusion :-

Article 156(1) provides that a Governor shall hold office during the pleasure of the President. Having regard to article 74, the President is bound to act in accordance with the advice of the Council of Ministers. Therefore, even though under article 156(1) the removal is at the pleasure of the President, the exercise of such pleasure is restricted by the requirement that it should be on the advice of the Council of Ministers. Whether the removal of Governor is open to judicial review? What article 156(1) dispenses with is the need to assign reasons or the need to give notice but the need to act fairly and reasonably cannot be dispensed with by article 156(1). The President in exercising power under article 156(1) should act in a manner which is not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. In the event of challenge of withdrawal of the pleasure, the Court will necessarily assume that it is for compelling reasons. Consequently, where the aggrieved person is not able to establish a prima facie instance of arbitrariness or mala fides, in his removal, the court will refuse to interfere. However, where a prima facie case of arbitrariness or mala fides is made out, the Court can require the Union Government to produce records/materials to satisfy itself that the withdrawal of pleasure was for good and compelling reasons. What will constitute good and compelling reasons would depend upon the facts of the case. Having regard to the nature of functions of the Governor in maintaining centre-state relations, and the flexibility available to the Government in such matters, it is needless to say that there will be no interference unless a very strong case is made out. The position, therefore, is that the decision is open to judicial review but in a very limited extent.1
Notwithstanding the expiration of the term: The Governor is to continue to hold office ‘notwithstanding the expiration of his term’. The effect of these words is to exclude all questions of the legality of the holding of office by a Governor after the expiry of his term. There must always be a Governor under article 153 and the interregnum is avoided by the proviso. It is, of course, to be expected that a new Governor will be nominated in time but circumstances may come into being which may take the holder beyond his five years’ term without a successor being named. It may not always be possible to appoint a Governor within the term of the incumbent. No doubt the provisions of article 160 may be resorted to but even that may not be sufficient to prevent an interregnum. Therefore, it is legitimate to hold that a person once appointed a Governor continued to hold that office till his successor enters upon his office. This successor may be appointed under article 155 or an order may be made under article 160.

Article 156 apparently lays down the term of the office of Governor. The corresponding provisions in the Constitutional Adviser’s Draft Constitution as also in the 1948 Draft Constitution of the Drafting Committee prescribed the term of office as four/five years and then by way of provisos said that a Governor (a) could resign (at any time), (b) could be removed (at any time), and (c) otherwise was to continue till a successor took over.

However, article 156 as adopted by the Constituent Assembly and as it now stands in the Constitution, almost imperceptibly and seemingly most innocuously but, in fact, most significantly, turned the position upside down. The article now does not in the main provide that the term of office is five years. Instead, it says that every Governor holds office “during the pleasure of the President” which means that a Governor would last only so long as the Union Government pleases or he/she enjoys its pleasure. “Subject to” this main provision i.e. if he/she is not removed earlier and also if he/she does not resign earlier, the term of office shall be five years. All this makes it normal and quite legitimate under the Constitution that the Governors do not always enjoy an uninterrupted five year term. The significance of the departure made becomes clearer when it is noted that in case of offices like those of President (article 56) and Vice-President (article 67), the main provision lays down the 5 year term and then gives the provisos.

Suggestions have been made for amending article 156 to lay down normally a fixed tenure of a five year term. However, the Constitution Commission (2002) after carefully considering the public responses to all such suggestions did not agree “to dilute the powers of the President” but did recommend that “normally the five-year term should be adhered to” and earlier removal should be “after consultation with the Chief Minister of the concerned State.”

Reference :-

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/227057/

https://byjus.com/ias-questions/what-is-the-article-156/

https://www.constitutionofindia.net/constitution_of_india/the_states/articles/Article%20156

https://www.latestlaws.com/bare-acts/central-acts-rules/article-156-constitution-of-india-term-of-office-of-governor

https://www.vedantu.com/question-answer/article-156-of-the-constitution-of-india-class-10-social-science-cbse-5ff7b6fa1eb9072eb8e00708

Constitutional debate is refered form Introduction to constitution of india by dd basu

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.

IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.

Do follow me on FacebookTwitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at secondinnings.hr@gmail.com

In the year 2021, we wrote about 1000 Inspirational Women In India, in the year 2022, we would be featuring 5000 Start Up Stories.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: