सं Samvidhan

The Constitution of India

Article 156

Term of office of Governor

Why this exists

The Governor is the President's representative in a state, and the framers wanted the Centre to have ultimate control over this office, similar to how the British Crown's representative once served at the Crown's pleasure. At the same time, they wanted administrative continuity, so a fixed five-year term and a rule against vacancies (via the proviso) were added, along with a formal, dignified way to resign.

How courts read it

In B.P. Singhal v. Union of India (2010), the Supreme Court held that while the President (acting on Council of Ministers' advice) can remove a Governor without giving reasons, this 'pleasure' power is not unlimited or unreviewable: removal cannot be arbitrary, mala fide, or merely because the party in power at the Centre has changed. Courts can examine removal if compelling evidence of arbitrariness is shown, though the government need not disclose reasons publicly.

Common misconceptions
  • Myth: The President can remove a Governor for absolutely any reason, with no limits at all.
    Fact: The Supreme Court in B.P. Singhal (2010) clarified that while reasons need not be disclosed, the removal cannot be arbitrary, mala fide, or based solely on a change of government at the Centre.
  • Myth: A Governor's five-year term is a guaranteed, fixed tenure like a judge's.
    Fact: The five-year term in clause (3) is subject to the President's pleasure under clause (1), so a Governor can be removed before completing the term.
  • Myth: If a Governor's term ends, the post becomes vacant immediately.
    Fact: The proviso ensures the outgoing Governor continues in office until a successor actually enters upon the role, avoiding any vacancy.