TEAM CODE:

THE 2015 JUSTICE P.B. SAWANT SECOND NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION

CASE CONCERNING THE REMOVAL OF GOVERNOR

THE ORGANISATION FOR WELFARE OF PEOPLE

(PETITIONER)
V.
THE UNION OF INDUS LAND

(RESPONDENT)

ON SUBMISSION TO THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE UNION OF

INDUS LAND

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

-TABLE OF CONTENTS-

-TABLE OF CONTENTS-..........................................................................................1

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

-INDEX OF AUTHORITIES-.....................................................................................2
-STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION-........................................................................4
-STATEMENT OF FACTS-........................................................................................5
-STATEMENT OF ISSUES-.......................................................................................7
-SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS-.................................................................................8
-WRITTEN PLEADINGS-.......................................................................................10
1. THE PIL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE FEDERAL COURT OF INDUS
LAND...........................................................................................................................10
1.1.The Petitioners Does Not Satisfy The Pre-Requisite Of The Principal Of Locus
Standi..........................................................................................................................10
1.2.There Is No Legal Dispute Concerned Because The Facts Do Not Disclose a
Prima Facie Case For Arbitrariness or Capricious Act.................................11
2. THE GOVERNOR HAS NOT DISCHARGED HIS RESPONSIBILITY IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME.................................16
2.1 Purview Of The Article 163 And The Relation With The Executive Functions....16
2.2 There Do Exist A Differnce In Tenure Of Elected And Nominated Official.........19
3. THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN REMOVING THE GOVERNOR HAS NOT
EXERCISED ITS POWER ARBITRARILY AND THEREFORE DID NOT
VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW.................................................................21
3.1 Constitutional Texts Interpretations Regarding The Term Of The Governor........21
3.2 Debate Regarding Nature Of The Post Of The Governor......................................23
3.3 There Aint Any Evidence That Would Reduce The Decisions Of The President To
Be Whimsical And Arbitrary........................................................................................25
4. THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT HAS NOT LOWERED THE HONOUR AND
DIGNITY OF THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR..................................................28
4.1 Government Should Be Based Upon Sound Principles.........................................29
-PRAYER-...................................................................................................................30

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

-INDEX OF AUTHORITIES-

BOOKS
A.V. Dicey, The Law Of The Constitution 422, Universal Law 13
Publishing, 10th Ed. 2012
Albert E. Bowen, Prophets, Principles and National Survival, Pg. 29
21-22.
B. Shiva Rao, The Framing Of The Constitution 243, Universal 13
Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vol. 6, 2006.
Constituent Assembly Debates, Lok Sabha Secretariat, Govt. of 23
India, 20055, Vol. VIII, Pg. 2166.
Constituent Assembly Debates, Official Print, Lok Sabha 17
Secretariat, Govt. of India, 20055, Vol. VIII, 2nd June, 1949.
Charles Henry Alexandrowicz, Constitutional Development of 22
India, Oxford University Press, 1957,
D.D. Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, 8th Ed., 23
2009, Pg. 6106.
HA GANI, Governor in the Indian Constitution: Certain 27
Controversies and the Sarkaria Commission, June 1983, Ajanta
Publications, Delhi (2008).
Granville Austin, Working A Democratic Constitution: A History 15
Of The Indian Experience 577 (OUP 2004)
H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law Of India, Universal Publishing 15
Co., 4th ed. Vol. II, 2008.
H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, Volume II, 1976 22
Edition.
Kagzi, M.C. Jain, The Constitutional of India, Vol. 1 , India Law 22
House, New Delhi, 2001.

CASES
Arun Kumar v. Union of India and Ors, AIR 1982 Raj 67

18

B.P. Singhal v. Union of India & Anr, (2010) 6 SCC 33

10,20

Gopalakrishnan v. Chancellor, University of Kerala, 1990 (1) KLT 14

681
Justice P.D. Dinakaran v. Hon'ble Judges Inquiry Committee and 15

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Ors., AIR 2011 SC 3711

K.L. Trading Co. Ltd. v. State of Meghalaya, AIR 1996 Gau 17.

12

Nissan Motors India Private Limited (NMIPL) v. The Competition 15

Commission of India (CCI), (2014) 5 MLJ 267
Om Narain Agarwal and others v. Nagar Palika, Shahjahanpur and 19
others, 1993 2 SCC 242
Pratap Singh Raojirao Rane v. Governor of Goa, Air 1999 Bom 53

23

Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India, AIR 2006 SC 980

18

Ranji Thomas v. Union of India, 2000 (2) SCC 8

11

S.P. Gupta v. President of India, AIR 1982 SC 149

10

Surya Narayan v. Union of India, AIR 1982 Raj 1

23

Union of India v. Jyoti Prakash Mitter, 1971 AIR 1093

13

Wp(C) v. Byadvs. Sri. P. Ravindran (Sr.), WA. No. 1832

14

DICTIONARIES
Black's Law Dictionary, 435, 9th Ed., 2009

21,23

Merriam-Webster Online

Referred

DYNAMIC LINKS
1. www.westlawindia.com
2. www.manupatra.com
3. www.indiankanoon.org
4. http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/parl.htm

LEGAL WEB
1. Constitution of India, 1950

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

-STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION-

The Union of Indus Land has the honour to submit this Memorial before the Federal
Court of the Indus Land in the matter arose due to the removal of the Governor of the
State of East Land, Mr. TARAK SINGH, and the Subsequent Interpretation of the
Article 156(1) along with the Scope of Doctrine of Pleasure. The Honble Federal
Court of Indus Land has the inherent jurisdiction to try, entertain and dispose of the
present case by virtue of Article 32.

-STATEMENT OF FACTS-

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

-SITUATION IN THE STATE OF EAST LAND-

The Conservative Party of Indus Land (CPI) and the Freedom Party of Indus
Land (FPI) are the two major national parties of the country of Indus Land.

State of East Land is the Biggest and the most developed State of the Union of
Indus Land. Mr. Tarak Singh is the Governor and Mr. Vinay Chandra is the
Chief Minister of the State.

Before Elections 2012, FPI is in Power and CPI is in Opposition. CPI is the
ruling party of the State of East Land since last 10 Years.

After Elections 2012, CPI came in power.

-PROBLEMS IN THE STATE OF EAST LAND-

Last year, Media exposed a Land Grabbing Scam in the State.

Chief Minister on consistent media perusal and in public interest directed the
State Crime Investigation Department (CAD) to investigate the matter.

Even though the Evidences collected by the CAD were not enough to prove
the involvement of the State Ministers, Governor gave the false sanction to
prosecute them.

Mr. Tarak Singh ordered the State Government to allocate Rs. 200 Crores for
the development of the backward revenue divisions of the State without
consulting the Council of Ministers.

-THE CASE-

Mr. Tarak Singh was removed from his post of the Governor of the State of
East Land by the order of the Central Government according to the prescribed
rules and guidelines.

There was a political uproar in the country regarding the removal of Mr. Tarak
Singh as the Governor of the State of East land. Many legal experts and
organizations decided to challenge this decision of the Central Government.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

The Organization for Welfare of People (OWP), a non-governmental

organization, working in the area of good governance in Indus Land has filed a
Public Interest Litigation in the Federal Court of Indus Land challenging the
decision of the Central Government to dismiss the Governor of the State of
East Land.

-STATEMENT OF ISSUES-

-1WHETHER THE PIL IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE FEDERAL COURT OF

INDUS LAND?

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

-2WHETHER THE GOVERNOR HAS DISCHARGED HIS RESPONSIBILITY IN

ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME?

-3WHETHER THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN REMOVING THE GOVERNOR

HAS EXERCISED HIS POWER ARBITRARILY AND VIOLATED THE DUE
PROCESS OF LAW?

-4WHETHER THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT HAS LOWERED THE HONOUR

AND DIGNITY OF THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR AND ACTED
CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL POLICY?

-SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS1. THE PIL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE FEDERAL COURT OF INDUS
LAND

It is humbly contended that the PIL has been filed against valid actions of the Central
Government that have not harmed the fundamental rights of any person. The PIL
7

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

stands non-maintainable for two prime reasons. First, that the petitioner, Organisation
for Public Welfare, does not satisfy the condition for the validation of principle of
locus standi as none of the aggrieved persons has approached the honourable court for
relief and mere disappointment shown by the Governor does not account into an
action for relief. Moreover, previous precedents call for rejection of similar natured
PILs. Secondly, the facts dont disclose a prima facie case for arbitrariness or
capricious act and hence there arises no legal dispute. The petitioner has neither
framed a very strong case nor provided the Court with any just statements that could
prove that the Government has acted unwontedly. The PIL has no legal or
authoritative backing and is hence, unfit to stand.

2. THE GOVERNOR HAS NOT DISCHARGED HIS RESPONSIBILITY IN

ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME

The discretionary powers assigned to the Governor are not absolute. Article 163(1) of
the Indian Constitution clearly signifies that the Governor can exercise his
discretionary powers only if there is a compelling necessity to do so. The functions of
Governor are essentially political and though he is not bound by the aid and advice of
the Council of Ministers, he ought to consult them in major policies and decisions
instead of acting in utter discretion. Article 371(2) of the Constitution gives Special
Responsibility for Development to the Governors. It means the same as in his
discretion but he is obligated to consult the Council of Ministers or else Article
163(1) would be rendered ineffective. Moreover, the nominated members cannot
claim equality to the elected members on all grounds. The Governors decisions are
misdirected. By not complying with the Government that the public has laid its faith
in, the Governor has clearly acted beyond constitutionary provisions and principals.

3. THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN REMOVING THE GOVERNOR HAS

NOT EXERCISED ITS POWER ARBITRARILY AND THEREFORE DID NOT
VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
It has been enshrined in the Article 156 of Constitution that if the Governor
chooses to exercise his discretion independently of the Centre or the
President, that is the Union Government, the President will be entitled to
withdraw his pleasure of continuing the Governor. The maxim of, Audi

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Alterum Partum does not apply in the present case. The Doctrine of
Pleasure cannot be disregarded. While the President himself can be
impeached, an irremovable Governor would be an anomaly. The Governor
could endanger executive efficiency, Union-State relations and might be
the focal point of separatist tendencies. The decision of removal of Mr.
Taarak Singh is not whimsical or arbitrary but under the prescribed rules
and guidelines of the Indian Constitution. Neither Article 156 nor Art 160
compels the President to give reasons. And there is no fact or evidence in
the Moot Proposition that suggests mala fide use of power by the President
as he has nothing against the Governor. The Governor has been removed
because he acted beyond constitutional provisions and in doing so, the
Central Government has not violated the due process of law.

4. THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT HAS NOT LOWERED THE HONOUR AND

DIGNITY OF THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR.

The Central Government in its actions to remove the Governor has merely fulfilled its
responsibility within the framework of the Constitution and the rule of law and has
not acted whimsically. The leaders of the Central Government are persons of intellect
in whom the public has laid down its faith. The needs for development of an area are
best known to the representatives of the people of that area in the Government. As
mentioned in proposition, the people of the State of East Land have been electing the
same government from the past 10 years which suggests that the steps taken by the
Government have always been aimed at the benefit of the public. The misdirected
decisions taken by Mr. Tarak Singh, without even consulting the Ministers, merely
caused legislative chaos. In dismissing the Governor fairly, the Central Government
has only acted in the welfare of the public and this is no way, an attempt to tarnish the
honour and dignity of the office of the Governor.
-WRITTEN PLEADINGS-

It is humbly submitted that,

1. THE PIL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE FEDERAL COURT OF INDUS
LAND.

In the context of the present case between Organisation for Welfare of People (Herein
after OPW) and Union of Indus Land, the PIL is filed under Article 32 of
Constitution, which guarantees the protection of the Fundamental Rights, enshrined in
the Part III of the Constitution. However, this PIL is filed against the valid actions of

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

central government of removal of Governor of the State of East Land, which in no

way harms the fundamental rights of the Governor or of the people, but indeed poses
a solution for better enhancement of future of the people of the State of East Land.
It is humbly submitted before the Honourable Court that the filed PIL is nonmaintainable under two limbs of arguments.
1.1.
THE PETITIONERS DOES NOT SATISFY THE PRE-REQUISITE FOR THE
PRINCIPAL OF LOCUS STANDI.

In S.P. Gupta v. President of India1, Supreme Court submitted that a writ petition by
way of PIL, to secure relief for the Governors who have been removed from office, is
not maintainable as none of the aggrieved persons had approached the court for relief
and the writ petitioner has no locus to maintain a petition seeking relief on their
behalf. It is pointed out that Governors do not belong to a helpless section of society
which by reason of poverty, ignorance, disability or other disadvantages, is not
capable of seeking relief.2 Reliance is placed on the following observations of this
Court in the Supra Case3:
..cases may arise where there is undoubtedly public injury by the actor omission
of the State or a public authority but such act or omission also causes a specific legal
injury to an individual or to a specific class or group of individuals. In such cases, a
member of the public having sufficient interest can certainly maintain an action
challenging the legality of such act or omission, but if the person on specific class or
group of persons who are primarily injured as a result of such act or omission, do not
wish to claim any relief and accept such act or omission willingly and without protect,
the member of the public who complains of a secondary public injury cannot
maintain the action, for the effect of entertaining the action at the instance of such
member of the public would be to foist relief on the person or specific class or group
of persons primarily injured, which they do not want.

1 S.P. Gupta v. President of India, AIR 1982 SC 149, 1981, Supp (1) SCC 87, 1982 2 SCR
365.
2 B.P. Singhal v. Union of India & Anr, (2010) 6 SCC 33, 11.
3 Supra, Note 1.
10

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Similar Public Interest Litigation came up before a Constitution Bench of this Court
in Ranji Thomas v. Union of India4, seeking intervention of this court to restrain the
President of India from forcibly extracting resignations from various Governors and
Lt. Governors. The Court observed in the case: The petitioner has no locus to
maintain the petition in regard to the prayers claiming relief for the benefit of the
individual Governors. At all events, such prayers no longer survive on account of
passage of time.
In the present case, it is very clear from the proposition that the governor has not
recorded any statement that shows that he does not respect the decision of the central
Government. However, the counsel on behalf of the respondent puts forward a
demarcation that that there is a difference between being disappointed from a decision
and taking any action to reverse it. Mere disappointment of the Governor, Mr. Tarak
Singh, towards the decision of the Central Government does not make the decision
Invalid or Illegal. Hence, an establishment is laid down which clearly shows that the
present filed petition does not have a legal and authoritative backing and therefore
should be dismissed.
1.2.
THERE IS NO LEGAL DISPUTE CONCERNED BECAUSE THE FACTS DO NOT
DISCLOSE A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR ARBITRARINESS OR CAPRICIOUS ACT.

The Supreme Court ruling5 is being selectively quoted and in fact, misquoted. The
Supreme Court is clear in the operative part of the Judgement in the year 2010 that
the union government or the president has powers to remove any governor.
The Constitution is very clear that a Governor only holds office during the pleasure of
the president.
And the apex court said that courts will presume the bona fide of the president's
action in removing a Governor.6
The second thing the Supreme Court said is that a Governor who is removed has no
Right to demand that the grounds of his removal be conveyed to him. It states that
4 Ranji Thomas v. Union of India, 2000 (2) SCC 8.
5 Supra, Note 2.
6 Supra, Note 2.
11

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

there must be a reason for removing a governor on file. But if the governor feels that
the grounds for his removal are mala fide, then he has to make "a very strong case"
before the court proving his removal is capricious and arbitrary. The onus of making
such a case is on the governor who has been removed and not on the government, and
only in such "very strong cases" can the court intervene. There is very limited scope
for judicial review in this matter.
There is nothing on record or even a semblance of suggestion that on any account
whatever the Government at the Centre, its functionaries or the President bore an illwill against Mr Tarak Singh. Simply because no reason has been mentioned in the
impugned order, it cannot be said that the order is arbitrary, capricious or malicious.
Mr Tarak Singh hadnt expressed any grievance or was not sore about his termination
and the petitioner cannot be allowed to make any grievance about it.
In B.P Singhal v. Union of India7, it was stated by the Court:
If the aggrieved person is able to demonstrate prima facie that his removal was either
arbitrary, malafide, capricious or whimsical, the court will call upon the Union
Government to disclose to the court, the material upon which the President had taken
the decision to withdraw the pleasure. If the Union Government does not disclose any
reason, or if the reasons disclosed are found to be irrelevant, arbitrary, whimsical, or
malafide, the court will interfere. However, the court will not interfere merely on the
ground that a different view is possible or that the material or reasons are
insufficient.8
The Supreme Court observed in K.L. Trading Co. Ltd. v. State of Meghalaya9, that to
attract Judicial Review of administration action, the applicant must show that the
administrative action suffers from vice of arbitrariness, unreasonableness and
unfairness. Merely because the Court may feel that the administrative action is not
justified on merit, can be no ground for interference. The Court can only interfere
when the process of making such decision is wrong or suffers from the vice of
arbitrariness, unfairness and unreasonableness.
7 Supra, Note 2.
8 Supra, Note 2, 50.
9 K.L. Trading Co. Ltd. v. State of Meghalaya, AIR 1996 Gau 17.
12

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

In the present case, it is clearly evident that the President, on the advice of the Central
Government didnt act whimsically and arbitrarily in his decision to remove the
governor, Mr. Tarak Singh. It cant also be clearly made out from the present case that
the President or the Central Government has something against the Governor, Mr.
Tarak Singh. The petitioners has neither framed a strong case nor provided the court
with any Just reason that could prove that the Central Government has acted
unreasonably. Pointing out Random Flaws in the Policies and Decisions based on the
Principals of the Constitutionalism, along with its skilfully framed Articles would do
no help to the Petitioners unless they produce some strong case or evidence in the
Court, which till date, they have failed to.
Supreme Court also observed in a ruling10 that:
But this Court will not sit in appeal over the judgment of the President, nor will the,
Courts determine the weight which should be attached to the evidence. Appreciation
of evidence is entirely left to the President and it is not for the Courts to hold that on
the evidence placed before the President on which the conclusion is founded, if they
were called upon to decide the case they would have reached some other conclusion.11
One may also agree with the reasoning, that removal of the Governor should be for
compelling reasons. Further, there should not be any whimsical or capricious grounds
for removal. However, one may take deviation from the same, where court stated 12
that opportunity of being heard will not be given to Governor while removing him. It
is agreed, that the Doctrine of Fair Hearing is not in itself absolute in nature and is
indeed, subject to some reasonable restrictions.13 The judiciary is the interpreter of the
Constitution and to the judiciary is assigned the delicate task of determining what is
the power conferred on each branch of Government, whether it is limited and if so,
what the limits are and whether any action of that branch transgresses such limits. It is
10 Union of India v. Jyoti Prakash Mitter, 1971 AIR 1093.
11 Id. 30.
12<https://www.academia.edu/8233260/B.P._Singhal_V._Union_Of_India_&_Anr_2010_A_
Critical_Analysis.>, accessed on 20th December,2014.
13 A.V. DICEY, THE LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION 422, Universal Law Publishing, 10th Ed. 2012; See
also, B. SHIVA RAO, THE FRAMING OF THE CONSTITUTION 243, Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.,
Vol. 6, 2006.
13

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

for the judiciary to uphold the constitutional values and to enforce the constitutional
limitations.
The extent and depth of Judicial Review will depend upon and vary with reference to
the matter under review. For example, judicial review is permissible in regard to
administrative action, legislations and constitutional amendments. But the extent or
scope of judicial review for one will be different from the scope of judicial review for
the other. Mala fides may be a ground for judicial review of administrative action but
is not a ground for judicial review of legislations or constitutional amendments. For
withdrawal of pleasure in the case of a Minister or an Attorney general, loss of
confidence may be a relevant ground. The Ideology of the Minister or Attorney
General being out of sync with the policies of or ideologies of the Government may
also be a ground. On the other hand, for withdrawal of pleasure in the case of a
Governor, loss of confidence will not be a ground for withdrawal of the pleasure. The
reasons for withdrawal are wider in the case of Ministers and Attorney General, when
compared to Governors. As a result, the judicial review of withdrawal of pleasure, is
limited in the case of a Governor whereas virtually nil in the case of a Minister or an
Attorney General".14
The situation will be clearer once we apply these above arguments into the practical
realm of the case where the Governor of the State of East Land, Mr. Tarak Singh,
asked the President of the nation for hearing his side of the case, which was not
considered by the President. By doing this, the President and the Central Government
did not try to curb his Right to Natural Justice but acted in an Official Manner in
which any Government would have, in their place. No Right is Absolute15 is well
known to every person in this nation especially when that Right is indeed, against the
very mind-set of the framers of the Constitution of the Country. The Central
Government is the ruling party of the nation who are brought into the position with
immense trust and faith by the citizens of the country. So it is the very requirement of
the Central Government that they should act in a manner, so that citizens of the
Country be benefitted out of that. We also need to remember that, nothing is above the
14Against The Judgment in Wp(C) v. Byadvs. Sri. P. Ravindran (Sr.), WA. No. 1832 of 2013,
in WP(C) 28829/2012, 23; Gopalakrishnan v. Chancellor, University of Kerala, 1990 (1)
KLT 681.
15 Id, Note 14.
14

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Constitution which according to the Preamble is given BY the people TO themselves.

Hence, nothing in the constitution should be construed in a way that harms the rights
and the interests of the masses.
Because, Justice should not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to
be done.16
Hence, it is pleaded before the honourable court that the above mentioned arguments
and authorities clearly establishes a system where the filed petition has no legal
backing and is therefore unfit to stand out and hence, should be dismissed
straightaway, unentertained.

16 Nissan Motors India Private Limited (NMIPL) v. The Competition Commission of India (CCI),
(2014) 5 MLJ 267; Justice P.D. Dinakaran v. Hon'ble Judges Inquiry Committee and Ors., AIR 2011
SC 3711, 113(2012) CLT 215 (SC); See also, GRANVILLE AUSTIN, WORKING A DEMOCRATIC
CONSTITUTION: A HISTORY OF THE INDIAN EXPERIENCE, 577, OUP 2004; H.M. SEERVAI,
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, Universal Publishing Co., 4th Ed., Vol. II, Pg. 5936.
15

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

2. THE GOVERNOR HAS NOT DISCHARGED HIS RESPONSIBILITY IN

ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME

Our Constitution is the product of thorough study, deep and mature considerations as
well as extensive Debate and Discussion. It is result of analytic and deliberate
considerations as well as judicious draftsmanship on the part of the framers of the
Constitution. The framers of the Indian Constitution were not writing on a clean slate.
They had before them the working of the Governments under the Government of
India Acts of 1919 and 1935. While framing the Constitution they were also
influenced by geographical considerations, historical necessities as well as cultural
and social diversities. The very fact that, it is not a product of a political revolution,
but of the research and political deliberations of a body of eminent Representatives of
the people who sought to improve upon the existing system of administration of the
country.
2.1 PURVIEW OF THE ARTICLE 163 AND THE RELATION WITH THE EXECUTIVE
FUNCTIONS.

The present circumstances arising between the Governor and the State Government,
forcing the State Governments in demanding the abolition of the office of the
Governor. It stressed however, the point needs to be reemphasized is that the
Governor should act in his discretion in rare and exceptional circumstances. It
becomes his moral and legal duty to uphold the supremacy of the Constitution. Since
the Centre has given the appointments, it tries the office to protect its interest.
Shri Jawaharlal Nehru and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar expressed in the Constituent Assembly
that:
Shri Nehru said:
But on the whole it probably would be desirable to have people from outside
eminent people, sometimes people who have not taken too great a part in politics
he would nevertheless represent before the public someone slightly above the party
and thereby, in fact, help that government more than if he was considered as part of
the party machine.

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar stated:

16

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

If the Constitution remains in principle the same as we intend that it should be, that
the Governor should be a purely constitutional Governor, with no power of
interference in the administration of the province.
Thus on a close reading of the Constituent Assembly Debates17, one would find the
following disclosures:
(I) The intention of the founding fathers was clearly to adopt the route of Doctrine of
Pleasure, instead of impeachment or enquiry, with regard to removal of Governors.
(II) It was assumed that withdrawal of pleasure resulting in removal of the Governor
will be on valid grounds but there was no need to enumerate them in the Article.
The functions of the Governor are essentially political and governed by certain
conventions of a parliamentary system of government. Although he is not bound by
the aid and advice of the Council of the Ministers of the State, in certain matters, but
that does not necessarily means that he can, at large, act on his own discretion and
decide on the policies of the State which has maximum tendencies of affecting the
nearby states too. He is at least required to consult and take advices from the State
Ministers, so concerned, so that the policies can be implemented upto a satisfactory
level and in the interest of the citizens of the state.
In other words, the person concerned is liable to be dismissed without notice and there
is no right of action for wrongful dismissal. This well known rule of English law has
been incorporated in Article 156(1) of the Constitution. The Governor's appointment
and also by necessary implication his removal is during pleasure of the President.
Neither the Presidential order can be challenged in any Court, nor can it be refuted in
any House of State legislature.
Legally the President's order is conclusive. The pleasure condition of a Governor's
term makes any proceeding or procedure or rules of Natural Justice for his removal
unnecessary. The founding fathers in their wisdom provided in Article 61 of the
Constitution for the removal of the President from office by impeachment, but as the
Governor holds office during pleasure of the President, it was not felt necessary to
make separate provision for the removal of the Governor. President enjoys
17 Constituent Assembly Debates, Official Print, Lok Sabha Secretariat, Govt. of India,
20055, Vol. VIII, 2nd June, 1949.
17

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

unregulated, uncontrolled power to remove a Governor without any stated reason.

The condition of his term of appointment being during pleasure any provision for his
removal would be unnecessary and superfluous. He has no security of tenure, no fixed
term of office which can be termed to be irrevocable.18
Article 371 (2) of the Constitution gives to the Governor, Special Responsibility for
the development of certain areas of the state. Practically, it means the same thing as
in his discretion but here, he is obligated to consult his council of ministers. If he
performs and takes each decision under in his discretion then the purpose of
providing Article 163(1) would be rendered useless. The governor is definitely an
Independent office but that surely does not mean that every of his decision
(legislative, executive, judicial) would be his own discretion and he would not consult
his Council of Ministers violating the spirit of the Constitution.
The expression required found in Article 163(1) is stated to signify that the
Governor can exercise his discretionary powers only if there is a compelling necessity
to do so.19
In the present instance, the Governor of the State of East Land Mr. Tarak Singh has
clearly acted outside the purview of his constitutional powers as he has tried to
interfere in the functioning of the Council of Ministers rather than acting according to
their policies. The State Government has been in power for the last ten years 20 and this
clearly indicates that the public has faith in them. The Council of Ministers are the
elected representatives of the State and are well aware of how to carry on the policies
for public welfare. The State Government has its objectives and it acts as per the fixed
agendas for public welfare. This need not be interfered in by the Governor in the
name of discretionary powers. Further, the Doctrine of Pleasure being absolute in the
country of Indus Land21, the removal of Governor of the State of East Land cant be
challenged. There is a synchronisation that needs to be maintained between the State
Government and the Governor and in its absence the President is envisaged with the
power to remove the Governor and this is the same case in the present instance.
18 Arun Kumar v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1982 Raj 67.
19 Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India, AIR 2006 SC 980, (2006) 2 SCC 1.
20 2, Moot proposition.
21 9, Moot proposition.
18

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

2.2 THERE DO EXIST A DIFFERNCE IN TENURE OF ELECTED AND NOMINATED

OFFICIAL

The Counsel on behalf of Respondent humbly submits that actually the appellant has
no legal or fundamental right to espouse. In this connection, one can draw his
attention to the judgement of the case of Om Narain Agarwal and others v. Nagar
Palika, Shahjahanpur and others22. Therein the Apex Court was dealing with a case
where persons who were nominated to the Municipal Board and who were to hold the
office during the pleasure of the State Government but not beyond the term of the
Board, challenged the constitutionality of the provision containing the pleasure
doctrine on the ground that it is in violation of Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
In the course of the judgment, the Apex Court, inter alia held as follows:
"We are not impressed with the reasoning given by the High Court that the fourth
proviso of Section 9 of the Act23 in any manner deprived the fundamental right of
equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. It is well established that the
right of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution applies to equals and
not to unequals. The nominated members of the Board fall in a different class and
cannot claim equality with the elected members. We are also not impressed with the
argument that there would be a constant fear of removal at the will of the State
Government and is bound to demoralise the nominated members in the discharge of
their duties as a member in the Board. We do not find any justification for drawing
such an inference, inasmuch as, and such contingency usually arises only with the
change of ruling party in the Government. Even in the case of functionary in the
Government like the Governors, the Ministers, the Attorney General and the Advocate
General discharge their duties efficiently, though removable at the pleasure of the
competent authority under the law, and it cannot be said that they are bound to
demoralise or remain under a constant fear of removal and as such do not discharge
their functions in a proper manner during the period they remain in the office."
One would, therefore, contend that the nominated members cannot be treated as
employees who may be entitled to continue for a definite term. The condition of the
22 Om Narain Agarwal and others v. Nagar Palika, Shahjahanpur and others, 1993 2 SCC
242.
23 United Provinces Municipalities Act, 1916.
19

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

nominated Governor is vulnerable as he can always be shown the door by the

President by exercising power under the Doctrine of Pleasure. He, therefore, has no
legal or fundamental right to continue for any particular term.24
The Counsel on Behalf of the Respondent considers it apposite to refer to the
Paragraphs 69 and 70, besides, Paragraph 80 of the Judgment25 of the Constitution
Bench, which reads:
On the other hand, it is contended by the Respondents that removal need not only be
for the reasons mentioned by the petitioner but can also be on two other grounds,
namely loss of confidence in the Governor or the Governor being out of sync with the
Policies and Ideologies of the Union Government. There is thus a consensus to the
extent that a Governor can be removed only for a valid reason, and that physical and
mental incapacity, corruption and behaviour unbecoming of a Governor are valid
grounds for removal. There is however disagreement as to what else can be grounds
for removal. We are of the view that there can be other grounds also. It is not possible
to put the reasons under any specific heads. The only limitation on the exercise of the
power is that it should be for valid reasons. What constitute valid reasons would
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.26
The Governor has tried to intervene in the functioning of the State machinery and this
therefore is a valid reason for the Governors removal. Furthermore, there has been no
ill-will on the part of the Central Government in the Governors removal thereby
eliminating any sort of exception to the Doctrine of Pleasure.

24 Supra, Note 17.

25 B.P. Singhal v. Union of India & Anr., 2010 6 SCC 33.
26 Supra, Note 12.
20

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

3. THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN REMOVING THE GOVERNOR HAS NOT

EXERCISED ITS POWER ARBITRARILY AND THEREFORE DID NOT VIOLATE
THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

Black's Dictionary27 defines the 'Pleasure Appointment' as:

The assignment of someone to employment that can be taken away at any time, with
no requirement for notice or hearing.
3.1 CONSTITUTIONAL TEXTS INTERPRETATIONS REGARDING THE TERM OF THE
GOVERNOR

Constitution of India thus 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 that hold office for specified terms with immunity against removal, except
by impeachment, which are not subject to the doctrine of pleasure.
Constitutional 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 defense service, Members of civil service of the Union,
Member of an All-India service, holders of posts connected with defense or any civil
post under the Union, Member 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).
Founding fathers expected persons of calibre, experience and distinction to be chosen
as Governors, not to enable them to earn their livelihood or find a roof over their
heads, but to serve the people. When they accept the office they know that they will be
holding it only during the pleasure of the President.

27 Black's Law Dictionary 435, 9th Ed., 2009, Pg. 1036.

21

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

A Celebrated Writer on Constitutional Law, Alexandrowicz in his well known book

"Constitutional Development of India"28 writes:
"If the Governor chooses to exercise his discretion independently of the Centre or the
President, that is the Union Government, the President will be entitled to withdraw
his pleasure of continuing the Governor under Article 156(1) of the Constitution."
Mr. H.M. Seervai in his well known book "Constitutional Law of India" observed29:
"The President can be removed from the office by impeachment for the violation of
the Constitution (Art.61). The President or one who has held the office of President is
eligible for re-election. The Governor holds office during the pleasure of the
President and can be removed by him at any time during short term of office
(Art.156), so that it is not necessary to provide for removal of Governor by
impeachment or by a process analogous to impeachment."
Kagzi, M.C. Jain, in his book30 "The Constitution of India" observed:
".........A person is appointed the Governor for a term of five years; but he can resign
his office earlier. The Governor holds his office during the pleasure of the President
who may recall him at any time......"
The condition of his term of appointment being during pleasures, any provision or
procedure if provided for his removal would be unnecessary and superfluous. The
Governor has no security of tenure and no fixed terms of office. He may be removed
by an expression of Presidential displeasure. His removal at pleasure gives no cause
of action. The impugned presidential Notification albeit a bold expression of
displeasure is a complete answer to all doubts, disputes, challenges and contentions
against his removal. Neither the Presidential order can be challenged in any Court, nor
can it be refuted in any House of State Legislature/Parliament. Legally the
Presidential order is conclusive.

28 Charles Henry Alexandrowicz, Constitutional Development of India, Oxford University

Press, 1957, Pg. 636.
29 H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, Vol. II, 1976 Ed., Pg. 6046, Point 18.4.
30 Kagzi, M.C. Jain, The Constitutional of India, Vol. 1 , India Law House, New Delhi,
2001, Pg. 265-266.
22

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

The Governor can be dismissed by the President without assigning any reason. 31
Hence, since Article 156 of the Constitution is not couched with the similar qualifying
words of immunity granted to Government servants under Article 310 of the
Constitution, therefore, "withdrawal of the pleasure" comes in to operation no sooner
it is withdrawn resulting in dismissal, removal or transfer of the office of Governor
without observing the principle of "Audi Alteram Partem" as this maxim has no
application. On the other hand, the maxim "Salus-Populi-Supreme-Lex" applies,
which means welfare of the people is supreme is also applicable.32
Under clause (3) of Article 156, it is apparent that five year term is subject to exercise
of pleasure by president and the president is the best judge to decide as to when and in
what circumstances the term of a sitting governor should be reduced or he may be
asked to vacate his office. No reason need be given for exercising the pleasure and he
need not be heard.33
If the foregoing term of a Governor were fixed term, the condition of his holding
office during Presidential pleasure would, be a redundancy. The essence of his term is
the Presidential pleasure, and not the duration of limit of five years. This is amply
borne out by a reference to the Constituent Assembly Debates.34 The idea of a fixed
mandatory term and for that matter the idea of an irremovable Governor was not
approved or accepted by the Constitution. The mode of an elected and consequently,
an irremovable Governor was not deliberately adopted by the framers. It was thought
that an appointed or nominated Governor holding office during Presidential pleasure
would remove a source of possible separatist tendencies.
3.2 DEBATE REGARDING NATURE OF THE POST OF THE GOVERNOR

The pleasure condition of a Governor's term makes any proceeding or procedure or

rules of natural justice for his removal unnecessary. A removal provision exists in
31 Surya Narayan v. Union of India, AIR 1982 Raj 1.
32 Black's Law Dictionary, 435, 9th Ed., 2009, Pg. 1412; See Also, D.D. Basu, Commentary
on the Constitution of India, 8th Ed., 2009, Pg. 6106.
33 Pratap Singh Raojirao Rane v. Governor of Goa, Air 1999 Bom 53; See Also, D.D. Basu,
Commentary on the Constitution of India, 8th Ed., 2009, Pg. 6107.
34 Constituent Assembly Debates, Lok Sabha Secretariat, Govt. of India, 20055, Vol. VIII,
Pg. 2166.
23

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

cases of high functionaries including President, Chief Justice and Judges of the
Supreme Court and those of the High Courts, but no such provision exists in case of
those functionaries who hold office during pleasure of President. If a Governor should
be irremovable during his five years term, while President, can be removed following
his impeachment in Parliament an irremovable Governor of a State holding office
during pleasure of the president would be an anomaly. He would endanger executive
efficiency, Union-State relations and might be possibly the focal point of separatist
tendencies. Even the learned counsel for the Petitioner would not want so. He readily
concedes that there can be a situation in which removal or dismissal of a Governor
might become justified in the national interest.
It would be wrong to construe the Art.156 by saying that Cl. (3) controls Cl. (1) of the
Article. The correct construction is just the opposite. It is expressly stated that Cl. (3)
is subject to Cl. (1). This means that five years term is subject to the exercise of
pleasure by the President. He may in exercise of pleasure cut short the term. The
Presidential pleasure is contemplated the Article is unjusticiable. It may be pointed
that where any regulatory restriction for the exercise at pleasure is contemplated, such
a provision could have been made in express words, as is the case with Art.311 in
relation to pleasure under Art.310. In the absence of any like regulatory provision and
its unqualified character, no restriction can be placed upon it.
The interpretation suggested by the learned counsel that the term of the office of
Governor cannot be reduced, if accepted, will have the effect of making Cl. (1) of
Art.156 otiose. It is also likely to create insurmountable difficulties for the country.
As for instance, in Assam, which stands surrounded by foreign countries like China,
Burma etc. and a narrow 30 miles corridor connect it with the rest of the country. If
the party in power of the State and the Governor decide to secede and integrate with
China, the President of India cannot be asked by a Court of Law to wait for five years
in not terminating the terms of the Governor or recall him earlier. Articles of the
Constitution are required to be given harmonious interpretation. A look at the debates
in the Constituent Assembly will show that one of the reasons, which weighed with
our founding fathers, was not to have the elected Governors, as this method would
encourage separatist tendency. The stability and the unity of the Government

24

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

machinery of the country as a whole could, the Constituent Assembly rightly

observed, be achieved only by adopting the system of nomination.
For the reasons already mentioned above the Counsel on behalf of the Respondent
holds that there is no merit in the argument that unless a minimum Constitutional term
of five years for the office of the Governor is held to be mandatory, it would demolish
the basic structure of the Constitution and the Government would become subservient
to the President and through him to the Government of India. It will not be out of
place to mention here that sometimes during the term of the office of a Governor he
has been and is subject to transfer from one State to another by order of the president.
3.3 THERE AINT ANY EVIDENCE THAT WOULD REDUCE THE DECISIONS OF THE
PRESIDENT TO BE WHIMSICAL AND ARBITRARY

The third limb of the same argument is that it is the requirement of law that every
executive action must be accompanied by reasons and should be free from
arbitrariness. The decision of the Central Government in removing the Governor of
the State of East Land is not arbitrary because this was taken and executed under the
prescribed rules and guidelines of the Constitution.
Neither Art.156 nor Art.160 enjoins on the President duty to give explicit reasons
while issuing orders under them. The President of India is the best Judge to decide as
to when and in what circumstances the term of sitting Governor of a State should be
reduced or he may be asked to vacate the office or may be transferred from one place
to another. It is not the requirement of Art.156 that a person who holds the office at
the pleasure of the President shall be removed by a speaking order. In a humble
opinion, it is tried to establish that the reasons are not required to be disclosed.
The point is undisputed that the Governor is not an employee either of the President
or of the Union Government. He is a Constitutional functionary. Obviously the
Governor is also the medium through whom Union keeps itself informed as to
whether the State is complying with the directives issued by the Union from time to
time. However, after promulgation of a proclamation on the failure of the
constitutional machinery in the State, the Governor acts as agent of the President. As
regards those functions of the State Government, which have been assumed by the
President under the proclamation Art.356(1)(a), it is obvious that in matters on which
the Governor is empowered to act in his discretion or on his special responsibility, the

25

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Governor will be under the complete control of the President. Art.371 (2) provides
that President may direct that the Governor of Maharashtra or Gujarat shall have a
special responsibility for taking steps for the development of certain areas in the State
such as Vidharb, Saurashtra etc. Similarly, the Governor of Nagaland under Art.371
(1) (B) has similar responsibilities with respect to law and order in the State. Special
responsibilities have also been imposed upon the Governors of Manipur and Sikkim.
In discharge of such responsibilities, the Governor has to act according to the
directions issued by the President from time to time and if anyone of the above noted
Governors flout the directions of the President aided by the Council of Ministers, it
cannot be said that the intention of the Constitution is that the President should feel
helpless and should not remove the Governor of that State prior to the expiry of the
term of five years.
Long discussion was carried on in the Constituent Assembly regarding the term of
appointment of the Governor and his removability. Ultimately Dr. B.R. Ambedkar
observed that this power of removal was given to the President in general terms. This
was so; although Prof. Shah wanted that certain grounds should be stated in the
Constitution itself for the removal of the Governor. Therefore, it seems obvious to Dr.
Ambedkar that when the President is given the general power, he is also given power
to remove a Governor for corruption, for bribery, for violation of Constitution or for
any other reason which the President, no doubt, feels is legitimate ground, for the
removal of the Governor. It seems, therefore, quite unnecessary to burden the
Constitution with all these details in express terms. When it is perfectly possible for
the President to act upon any one or more ground under the formula, I should think
that it is unnecessary to categorise the conditions under which the President may
undertake the task of removing the Governor. The President in the present case has
acted in this general power and completely acted within the purview of his
constitutional powers. Merely not notifying the Governor about the removal, when the
Doctrine of pleasure is absolute in the country, is not a proof of ill-will or arbitrariness
on the part of the President or the central government.
The power of removal has been left in the hand of the highest Constitutional
functionary of the Union of India: and a presumption under S. 114 of the Evidence Act
does arise that an official act must have been done in the manner it ought to have
been done. No fact or data has been mentioned in the Proposition or placed before this
26

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Court on the basis of whom it can be said that the President while passing the
impugned order, acted capriciously, arbitrarily or maliciously. Mere averment of the
word 'capricious' or 'malicious' in the argument is not sufficient. Necessary details are
required to be mentioned. Thus, there is nothing on record or even a semblance of
suggestion that on any account whatever the Government at the Centre, its
functionaries or the President bore an ill-will against Mr. Tarak Singh. Simply because
no reason has been mentioned in the impugned order, it cannot be said that the order
is arbitrary, capricious or malicious. Nowhere in the proposition, has it been
mentioned that Shri Tarak Singh had expressed any grievance or was sore about his
termination and therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed to make any grievance
about it. The Court also considered the recommendation of the Sarkaria
Commission35 and the Consultation Paper on Institution of Governor under the
Constitution36 published by the National Commission to Review the Working of the
Constitution, both of which have made a strong case for reading in detailed guidelines
into Article 156. However, while noting these recommendations, the Court, in a
refreshing act of judicial economy, observed:
These recommendations howsoever logical, or deserving consideration and
acceptance, remain recommendations. They cannot override the express provisions of
the Constitution as they stand. Nor can they assist in interpreting Article 156. The
very fact that such recommendations are made, shows that the position under the
existing Constitutional provisions is otherwise. They are suggestions to be considered
by those who can amend the Constitution. They do not assist in interpreting the
existing provisions of the Constitution.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted that, if there is no disclosure of the reason, there is
no purpose of the need of the reason and therefore, the principal of Doctrine of
Pleasure stands unfettered and undisputed and the Central Government in removing
the Governor has not exercised its power arbitrarily and therefore did not violate the
Due Process of Law.

35 HA GANI, Governor in the Indian Constitution: Certain Controversies and the

Sarkaria Commission, June 1983, Ajanta Publications, Delhi, 2008.

36 National Commission to Review the working of the Constitution, February 2000.

27

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

4. THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT HAS NOT LOWERED THE HONOUR AND

DIGNITY OF THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR.
The Parliament or Legislature plays an important role in the life of a
nation. It thus also performs the following important main function 37:
It Oversee/Supervise the activities of the executive so that the
Government is accountable to the people.
Achieving good governance requires the existence of a strong, effective
and efficient Parliament. This is so because parliament plays a crucial role
in gauging, collating and presenting the views and needs of the people,
articulating their expectations and aspirations in determining the
national/state development agenda. Parliament helps to identify problems
and policy challenges that require attention and assists in overcoming
Bureaucratic inertia.
It is humbly submitted before the honourable court that with the above
three arguments, the counsel on behalf of the respondent, has tried to lay
down an establishment which clearly shows that the Central Government
has fulfilled its responsibilities within the framework of the rule of law and
the constitution of the land and has not acted arbitrary and whimsically.
It is to be understood that the Central Governments Leaders have been
acting and taking decisions in the welfare and interest of the people from
long and this is why they came into the power. And till date, they take
decisions in favour of the people of the state and removing the governor,
Mr. Tarak Singh, is one such decision that will ultimately favours and
benefits the interest of the people of the state of the East Land.
The Governor, Mr. Tarak Singh, has definitely taken steps 38 towards the
development of the state but in a wrong direction. The political decisions
has the largest tendency to affect the lives of the citizens of the state and
therefore, it is indeed, expected from the executive to not take decision on
an account of Emotional Attachments or forcible executions but on the
account of Need.
Which part of the state requires what type of Developmental Structure
and at what time, are best known to the representatives of those people

37 Arend Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy, 1999; Laundy, Philip, Parliaments in the Modern
World, Dartmouth 1989; Sorensen, A., Election without Democracy: Process and prospects in
a Changing World, 3rd Ed., West View Press 2002; UNDP/IPU, Global Parliamentary Report:
the Changing Nature of Parliamentary Representation, Denmark, 2012.
38 6, Moot proposition.
28

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

in the Government. The CM and the Council of Ministers were unhappy 39

because of the fact that the Governor, though, announced different
Policies40 to be executed in certain areas of the State under his
responsibilities shouldered by Article 371(2) but it was not required, then,
in those areas. There were certain areas which were indeed in more need
of Technological Development than those areas in which Policies of the
Governor were centred and hence, large sum of money and resources
would go in vain if they are not made to meet the people who are qualified
for it.
4.1 GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE BASED UPON SOUND PRINCIPLES.

Such an approach (as taken by the Governor, in the present context) towards vital
political questions of the day can only lead to Public Confusion and Legislative
Chaos. Decisions of this nature should be based upon and measured against certain
basic principles regarding the proper role of government. If principles are correct,
then they can be applied to any specific proposal with confidence.
Are there not, in reality, underlying, universal principles with reference to which all
issues must be resolved, whether the society be simple or complex in its mechanical
organization? It seems to the counsel on behalf the respondent that we could relieve
ourselves of most of the bewilderment which so unsettles and distracts us by
subjecting each situation to the simple test of right and wrong. Right and wrong as
moral principles do not change. They are applicable and reliable determinants
whether the situations with which we deal are simple or complicated. There is always
a right and wrong to every question which requires our solution.41
Unlike the political opportunist, the true statesman values principle above
popularity, and works to create popularity for those political principles
which are wise and just.
Hence, it is pleaded and humbly submitted that the Central government
has acted reasonably within the framework of the Constitutional Policies
and therefore did not compromised on the dignity of the Governor Office
and acted in the interest and benefits of the citizens of the State of East
Land.
-PRAYER-

39 7, Moot Proposition.
40 6, Moot Proposition.
41 Albert E. Bowen, Prophets, Principles and National Survival, Pg. 21-22.
29

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

In Light of the Issues raised, arguments advanced and Authorities cited. It is most
humbly and respectfully submitted that this Honourable Court may adjudge and
declare that:
1) The PIL is not maintainable before the Federal Court of Indus Land.
2) The Governor has not discharged his responsibility in accordance with the
Constitutional Scheme.
3) The Central Government in removing the Governor has not exercised its power
arbitrarily and therefore did not violate the due process of law.
4) The Central Government has not lowered the honour and dignity of the office of
the Governor.
Also, the Counsel on Behalf of Respondent prays before the Honourable Federal
Court for dismissing the Plea for the Restoration of the Governor.

The Court may also be pleased to pass any other order, which this Honourable Court
may deem fit in light of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
All of which is respectfully affirmed and submitted.

SD/-Counsel on Behalf of Respondent-

30