Court case(2010) 6 SCC 331

In July 2004, soon after a change of Government at the Centre, the President on the advice of the new Council of Ministers removed the Governors of Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana and Goa without assigning any reason. B.P. Singhal, a former Member of Parliament, filed a public interest petition under Article 32 contending that Governors are not employees of the Union, that the pleasure under Article 156 cannot be exercised arbitrarily or for political reasons, and that the removals should be quashed.

Raveendran J held that the Governor holds office during the pleasure of the President, which is exercised on the advice of the Council of Ministers, and that no notice, reason or hearing is required for removal. But the pleasure is not unfettered or arbitrary: it must be exercised for valid, compelling reasons; a Governor cannot be removed on the ground that he is out of sync with the policies and ideologies of the Union Government or the party in power, or because the Government has lost confidence in him. The Governor is not an agent of the Centre. Judicial review is limited: the Court will not go into the sufficiency of reasons, but if a Governor makes out a prima facie case of arbitrariness or mala fides the Union must produce the material justifying the removal. On the facts, the petition was disposed of with these declarations.