ISSUE:
Whether the removal of a Governor by the President of India under Article 156(1) of the Constitution is subject to judicial review and whether there are limitations on the exercise of this power?
Can it be challenged on grounds of arbitrariness and violation of constitutional principles?
RULE:
Doctrine of Pleasure: The court examined the "doctrine of pleasure," which allows the President to remove Governors at will, but clarified that this power is not absolute and must adhere to principles of constitutionalism.
Judicial Review: The removal of a Governor is subject to judicial review, meaning that courts can evaluate whether the removal was justified and not arbitrary or capricious.
Protection Against Arbitrary Actions: By affirming that removals could be challenged in court, the ruling provided a safeguard against arbitrary actions by the executive, ensuring accountability in governance.
Legislative Intent: The court interpreted legislative provisions to ensure that the removal of Governors aligns with their intended constitutional functions, rather than being influenced by political motives.