TEAM CODE: 162

Before,

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA]

IN THE MATTER OF

Mr. S.P. JUNGLE ………………………………………………………..…PETETIONER

v.

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS………………………………….….RESPONDENTS

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS___________________________________________________II

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES___________________________________________________III

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION____________________________________________IX

STATEMENT OF FACTS_____________________________________________________X

ISSUES RAISED____________________________________________________________XI

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS_______________________________________________XII

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED_________________________________________________1-11

1) WHETHER THE IMPUGNED DECISION OF REMOVING THE

PETITIONER IS ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION AND
HENCE VOID?_________________________________________________________1
2) WHETHER THE CENTRAL GOVERNEMENT ENJOYS THE
PREROGATIVE OF REMOVING THE GOVERNOR?_________________________5
3) WHETHER THE GOVERNORSHIP IS FRAUGHT
WITH POLITICAL OVERTONES?_________________________________________6
4) WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF PLEASURE IS ANTITHETICAL
TO THE INDEPENDENCE OF GUBERNATORIAL ASSIGNMENTS?____________7
5) WHETHER THE IMPUGNED DECISION OF REMOVING
THE PETITIONER IS ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTIUTION
AND HENCE VOID______________________________________________________8

PRAYER__________________________________________________________________ XII

I
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 LIST OF ABBRIBATION

1 Art. Article
2 Cl. Clause
3 Guj. Gujarat
4 Mad Madras
1 A.I.R. All India Reporter
2 All. Allahabad
3 A.P. Andhra Pradesh
4 Bom. Bombay
5 Ch Chapter
6 ed. Edition
7 E.C.I. Election Commission of India
8 Entry Entry of the Constitution of India
9 J&K Jammu and Kashmir
10 Ltd. Limited
11 M.P. Madhya Pradesh
12 Ori. Orissa
13 Ors. Others
14 Supp. Supplementary
15 S.C. Supreme Court
16 S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases
17 S.C.R. Supreme Court Report
18 UOI Union of India
19 U.P. Uttar Pradesh
20 v. Versus
21 W.P. Writ Petition

II
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

INDIAN JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. A.K. Roy v. India AIR 1982 SC 710

2. A.P. Agrawal v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2000 SC 205
3. Asha Sharma v. Chandigarh Adm., (2011) 10 SCC 86.
4. Ashis Handa v. Chief Justice of High Court of P&H, (1996) 3 SCC 145
5. B.P. Singhal v. Union of India and Another [(2010) 6 SCC 331 at 352
6. Baldev Raj v. Union of India AIR 1981 SC 70.
7. Bhuri Nath v. State of J&K, (1997) 2 SCC745
8. Bijoya Lashmi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1967 SC 1145(1150).
9. Bodhisattwa v. SubhraChakroborty, AIR 1996 SC 922, 926
10. Brundaban Nayak v. Election Commission of India, AIR 1965 SC 1892
11. Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P., AIR 1966 SC 1987
12. Chunilal v. Century Spinning Co., AIR 1962 SC 1314( 1318)
13. Chunilal V. Mehta v. Century Spining and Manufacturing Co. AIR 1962 SC 1314
14. Common Cause, A registered Society v. Union of India, AIR 1999 SC 2979 at 3020
15. DDA v. Joint Action Committee, (2008) 2 SCC 672
16. DevDutta v. Union of India 2008 8 SCC 725
17. E.P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555
18. ECI v. Subrammaniyam Sahoo, 1996 4 SCC 104
19. Govindaraju v. Mariamman, AIR 2005 SC 1008
20. Gurudev Singh v. Union if India,(2002) 1 SCC 545
21. GVK Industries Ltd. v. ITO (2011) 4 SCC 36.
22. Himachal Pradesh v. Anjana Devi, (2009) 5 SCC 108
23. Himatlal Harilal Mehta v. State of M.P. (1954) SCR 1122
24. His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr. AIR 1973 SC
1461
25. In ... v. By Advs.Sri.O.V.Radhakrishnan, Wa.No. 347 Of 2012
26. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SCC 2299.
27. Indramany Pyralal Gupta v. WR Natsey, AIR 1963 SC 274

III
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
28. Jain R.K. v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 1769.
29. Joyti Prakash Mitter v. Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court, AIR 1965 SC 564
30. K.C. Mathew and Sons v. A. SulaikhaBeevi, AIR 2000 SC 3408.
31. Keher Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 653
32. Khan Chand v. State of Punjab, (1974) UJSC 66
33. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295.
34. KishanLalLakhmi Chand v. State of Orissa, (1993) Supp. 4 SCC 461
35. Kochmunni Moopil Nayar, KavalapparaKottarathill v. State of Madras, (1959) Supp. (2) SCR 316
( 325-27)
36. LaxmiKhandsari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 873, (891)
37. M.P. Special Police Establishment v. State of M.P. SCC (L&S) 550
38. M/S Nek Ram Sharma and Co. v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ors. OWP(IT) 823/2000 7
December 2000
39. MadhavRaoScindia v. Union of India AIR 1971 SC 530
40. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd v. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 798
41. Maluram v. Union of India, (1981) SCC 107
42. Maru Ram v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 2141
43. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 625
44. Moti Ram Deka Etc. v. General manager, N.E.F Railways, Maligaon, Pandu, Etc, 1964 AIR 600.
45. Municipal Committee, Patiala v. Model Town Residents Assn., (2007) 8 SCC 669.
46. N.R.Ajwani v. Union of India and Ors,95 (2002) DLT 770.
47. NandiniSundar v. State of Chattisgarh (2011) 7 SCC 547
48. Naraindas v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1974 SC 1232
49. Narmada BacchaoAndolan v. State of M.P. (2011) 12 SCC 333
50. P.L. Dhingra v. Union of India AIR 1958 SC 36
51. Pu Myllai Hlychho v. State of Mirzoram, (2005) 2 SCC 92
52. Punjab Dairy Development Board v. Cepham Milk Specialities Ltd., (2004)8 SCC 621
53. R Subba Rao v. N Veeraju AIR 1951 Mad 969
54. R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 546
55. R.C. Poudyal v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 1804
56. R.D.Shetty v. International Airport Authority (1979) 3 SCC 489.

IV
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
57. Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur And Ors. vs The State Of Punjab on 12 April, 1955, AIR 1955 SC 549
58. RaichurmathamPrabhakar v. RawatmalDugar, (2004) 4 SCC 766
59. Rajendra Singh Verma v. Lt. Governor ( NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 1
60. Rajeswari v.PuranIndoria, (2005) 7 SCC 60
61. Ram Chandra Nayak v. State of Orissa, AIR 2002 Ori 25.
62. Ram JethMalani v. Union of India (2011) 8 SCC 1.
63. Rao v. Indira, AIR 1971 SC 1002: (1971) 2 SCC 63
64. Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana, ( 1950) SCR 566
65. Rourkela MazdoorSabha v. Union of India, (1994) 5 SCC 313(II).
66. S.P Sampath Kumar v. Union of India(1987) 1 SCC, Minerva Mills
67. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149
68. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India AIR 1994 SC 1318
69. S.R. Chowdray v. State Of Punjab, (2001) 7 SCC 126
70. Samsher v. State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 2192
71. Shatrughan Chauhan and Others v. Union of India 2014 (2) SCJ 1
72. Sher Singh and Others v. State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 344,
73. ShriSitaram v. Union of India AIR 1990 SC 1277
74. Sri.A.M.Bhaskar v The State Of Karnataka on 15 July, 2013, WRIT PETITION NOS.25964-25967
OF 2013
75. State of Andhya Pradesh v. G. Ramakishan, AIR 2001 SC 324
76. State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid (1) AIR 1954 SC 245
77. State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh, (2009) 5 SCC 65
78. State of Haryana v. Jai Singh, (2003) 9 SCC 114
79. State of Maharashtra v. Kamal S Durgule 1985 1 SCC 234
80. State of Maharashtra v. RamdasShrinivasNayak, (1982) 2 SCC 463
81. State of Orrisa v. Dhaniram Loha, AIR 2004 SC 1794
82. State of Punjab v. Sodhi, AIR 1961 SC 493
83. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 1361
84. State of Tamil Nadu v. Shyam Sunder, (2011) 8 SCC 737
85. State of Tripura v. Manoranjan Chakroborty, (2001) 10 SCC 740, 742
86. State of U.P. v. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti, 1995 Supp. (2) SCC

V
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
87. State of West Bengal & Ors v. Commtt.ForProtect,Democratic, SLP (CRL.) NO.4096 OF 2007 AND
W.P. (C) NO.573 OF 2006.
88. Subhash Sharma & Ors. V. Union of India 1991 AIR 631, 1990,
89. Sudhir Chandra v. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd AIR 1984 SC 1064
90. Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC
91. Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr. v. Naz Foundation & Othrs. Civil Appeal No.10972 of 2013
92. Surya v. Union of Inida AIR 1982 Raj 1
93. T.V. Vatheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu (1983) 2 SCC 68
94. Titlagarh Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1983 SC 603
95. Triveniben v. State of Gujarat (1988) 4 SCC 574.
96. Union of India and Ors v. Major.S.P. Sharma and Ors Civil Appeal Nos.2951-2957 Of
97. Union of India v. JoytiPrakashMitter, AIR 1971 SC 1316 .
98. University of Allahabad v. Anand Prakash Mishra, (1997) 10 SCC 264
99. Veekay Connections (P) Ltd. v. National Small Industries Corp. Ltd., AIR 2005 All 57 (59)
100. Welfare Assam ARP v. Ranjit P.Gohil, (2003) 9 SCC 358
FOREIGN JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. Fedeartion of Pakistan (1993) PLD 473

2. (SC); Farooq Ahmed Khan Leghani v. Federal Government (1999) PLD 57 (SC
3. Luther v. Borden 48 U.S. [7 How.] 1, 12 L. Ed. 581 [1849]
4. Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986)
5. Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433
6. Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549
7. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186
8. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486
9. Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996
10. INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919
11. Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224
12. Sweezy v. Newampshire (1957) US 234 (SC).
13. Dunn v. Queen1896 (1) QB 116
14. Terrell v. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, [1953] 2 Q.B. 482.

VI
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
.

ARTICLES

1. Tushnet, Mark.V.,"Law and Prudence in the Law of Justiciability: The Transformation and
Disappearance of the Political Question Doctrine." North Carolina Law Review 80, 1203–
35(2002).
2. Garth Nettheim (1975). Dunn v. The Queen Revisited. The Cambridge Law Journal, 34, pp
253-281

BOOKS

1. ARNHART LARRY, POLITICAL QUESTIONS: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY FROM

PLATO TO RAWLS (Prospect Heights, Ill: Waveland Press, Pushaw,3rd Ed. 2003),
2. ROBERT.J.Jr, “THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION DISPUTE, THE POLITICAL
QUESTION DOCTRINE, AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT”(2002).
3. ARVIND P DATAR, COMMENTARY ON CONSTIUTION OF INDIA 566 (WADHWA
NAGPUR 2nd ed. 2007)
4. P B GAJENDRAGADKAR, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA- IT‟S PHILOSOPHY AND
BASIC POSTULATES, BOMBAY 67 (OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 1969)
5. B. SHIVA RAO,, THE FRAMING OF INDIA‟S CONSTITUTION SELECT
DOCUMENTS 68 (Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt, Ltd., Vol. 4 2006)
6. SUBHASH. C. KASHYAP, ABAYA KASHYAP, INDIAN PRESIDENCYy,
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND PRACTICE,( Universal Publication Co. New Delhi).
7. SUBHASH C KASHYAP, INDIAN CONSTITUTION CONFLICT AND
CONTROVERSIES 402 (Vitasta Publishing Pvy. Ltd.).
8. DR. SUBHASH C. KASHYAP, UNION-STATE RELATIONS IN INDA 26(The Institute of
Constitutional & Parliamentary Studies 1969)
9. GRANVILLE AUSTIN, THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION: CORNERSTONE OF A
NATION 255 (Oxford University Press 15th impression 2010)H.M. SEERVAI,
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA 1070(Universal Law Publishing Co. 4th ed. 2008).
10. V.R Krishna Iyer, Constitutional Miscellary 45 (Eastern Book Company 2nd 2007).
11. Dr.DHAWAN, „PRESIDENT‟S RULE IN THE STATE‟,118( N.M Tripathi Pvt. Ltd, 1979)

VII
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
12. JOHN.P.MACKINTOSH,THE BRITISH CABINET, 13 (Stevens and Sons Ltd. London
1977)
13. VALMIKI CHOUDHARY, Dr. RAJENDRA PRASAD: CORRESPONDENCE AND
SELECT DOCUMENTS,DELHI, pp 104-10 and 280-91(Allied Publishers 1991,ed. Vol.14)
14. K.M.MUNSHI, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL DOCUMENTS 574 (Bombay Bhartiya
Vidhya Bhawan Vol.1 1967).
15. DJ De, The Constitution of India 511(Asia Law House 3rd ed. 2011)
16. K C WHEARE, MODERN CONSTITUTIONS 143(OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 1958)
17. I JENNINGS, SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION
70(OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 1953).
18. DR. L.M. SINGHVAI, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 299 (Modern Law Publication 2nd ed.
2007).

STATUTES

1. The Constitution of India, 1950

2. The General Clauses Act, 1897

OTHERS

1. Sarkaria Commisiion Report Vol. 1 pp 115, 120

2. ARC, Report of the Study Team, p. 273
3. Bangalore Seminar Report, JCPS, Special Number 1984 p 400.
4. C Subramaniam Oral History Transcript (1990 Interview „SL No. 1, „A‟, draft‟,p.14)
5. White Paper on the office of the Governor by Government of Karnataka, September 22, 1983

LAW DICTIONARIES

1. SUSAN ELLIS WILD, WEBSTER‟S NEW WORLD LAW DICTIONARY (Wiley

Publishing Inc.)
2. OXFORD DICTIONARY OF LAW(Oxford University Press)
3. HERBERT BROOM, A SELECTION OF LEGAL MAXIMS, CLASSIFIED AND
ILLUSTRATED(Stevens and Norton)
4. BRYAN.A.GARNER,BLACK‟S LAW DICTIONARY(Thomson Reuters, 8th ed. 2009)

VIII
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner has approached the Hon‟ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution
of India, 1950.

IX
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Jamboodweep Democratic Alliance (JWA) of which the Jamboodweep Janata Party (JJP)
was the major partner, swept to power at the centre, with curtains falling down on the two term
reign of the Consolidated Progressive Alliance (CPA) in the recently concluded general elections
in India.

On the verge of demitting of the office the CPA made a couple of significant appointments and
the Gubernatorial posting of Mr.S.P.Jungle to the state of Vidhyachal, who was a minister for
higher education in the state of Kishkindha ruled by the Indian National Party (INP), which in
turn was a leading partner of CPA was indeed an important one inter alia.

With the change of guard at the centre, changes in the policy making and ideologies were
imminent. While some political appointees of the previous regime demitted their offices as the
new administration took over, others were formed dilly-dallying. Some governors, including
Mr.Jungle thought aloud that they were apolitical and therefore there wasn't any need for them to
resign. On its part, the central government kept on dropping subtle hints and gave vent to its
feeling that Governors work during the pleasure of the President.

Amidst the raging political turmoil, while speaking in a function organized to felicitate retired
soldiers, Mr.Jungle made an impromptu observation about the policies pursued by the current
premier and his team and the next day witnessed some dramatic developments that culminated in
the removal of Mr.Jungle from Governorship. When his protestations went unheard, Mr.Jungle
filed a petition in the Supreme Court, challenging among others, the constitutional vires of the
decision to remove him.

X
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 ISUUES RAISED

I. WHETHER THE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE?

II. WHETHER THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ENJOYS THE PREROGATIVE OF

REMOVING A GOVERNOR?

III. WHETHER THE GOVERNORSHIP IS FRAUGHT WITH POLITICAL

OVERTONES?

IV. WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF PLEASURE IS ANTITHETICAL TO THE

INDEPENDENCE OF GUBERNATORIAL ASSIGNMENTS?

V. WHETHER THE IMPUGNED DECISIONS OF REMOVING THE PETITIONER IS

ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION AND HENCE VOID?

XI
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I. WHETHER THE IMPUGNED DECISION OF REMOVING THE PETITIONER
IS ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION AND HENCE VOID?

The impugned decision of removing the Petitioner is ultra vires the Constitution. The impromptu
observation followed by the removal of Governor is unreasonable. The impugned decision is
arbitrary and is in violation of the Rule of Law. The arbitrary decision disturbs the Basic
Structure Doctrine and hits Part III of the Indian Constitution.

II. Whether the Petition is maintainable?

The Petition is maintainable before this Hon‟ble Bench for the reason that the Petition involves
substantial question of Law and is ultra vires the Constitution. There is a violation of
Fundamental Right of the Petitioner and the Act of President as a result is justiciable.

III. Whether the Central Government enjoys the prerogative of removing a Governor?

The Central Government does not enjoy a prerogative in the removal of a Governor. Article
74(1) is a mandate on the actions of Central Government to be guided by the aid and advice of
the Council of Ministers which is binding in nature. The President power of removal of Governor
is not based on personal subjective satisfaction but is guarded by the boundaries of Constitution.

IV. Whether the Governorship is fraught with political overtones?

The Governorship should not be fraught with Political Overtones and is an independent
Constitutional office on paper. However the practicality of the situation is different. The office of
governor is deeply affected by political extraneous consideration in real.

V. Whether the Doctrine of Pleasure is antithetical to the independence of

gubernatorial assignments?

The Doctrine of Pleasure is used with political pleasure which affects the independence of
gubernatorial assignments and thus is antithetical. The political infiltration in the name of aid and
advice of Council of Ministers to the President controls the Pleasure Doctrine in the arms of
President.

XII
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1) WHETHER THE PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS MAINTAINABLE

1.1) The Issues Involved is Ultra Vires to the Basic Structure Doctrine

The Basic Structure Doctrine was the consequence of the „KeshvanadaBharti Case‟1. „While the
language of the constitution does not change, the changing circumstances of a progressive
society for which it was designed yield a new change and fuller import to its meaning.‟2 The
latest trend is away from original intend approach towards the progressive approach namely the
constitutional provisions are required to be construed in consonance with the changed conditions
and era of the society and must be viewed and interpreted with a vision to future.3
Constitutionalism opposes despotic government, the government of will instead of law.4The SC
has unequivocally ruled that the supremacy of the constitution5, Rule of Law6is the basic
structure of the Constitution. The impugned decision is capricious and is in violation of Rule of
Law which is a Basic Structure. Therefore the Petition is maintainable.

1.2) Article 32 can be utilized for violation of Fundamental Right by Constitutional Power

It is a time honored principle, as stipulated that no matter, whether the violation of fundamental
right arises out of an executive action/inaction or action of the Legislature, Article 32 can be
utilized to enforce the fundamental right in either event.7 The court has entertained the petition of

1
His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr. AIR 1973 SC 1461.
2
Sweezy v. Newampshire (1957) US 234 (SC).
3
Benazir Bhutto‟s Case (1988) PLD 416 (SC). See Also, Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. Fedeartion of Pakistan (1993)
PLD 473 (SC); Farooq Ahmed Khan Leghani v. Federal Government (1999) PLD 57 (SC).
4
M.P JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 697(Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur 6th ed. 2012) .
5
State Of West Bengal & Ors v. Commtt.For Protect ,Democratic, SLP (CRL.) NO.4096 OF 2007 AND W.P. (C)
NO.573 OF 2006.
6
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SCC 2299.
7
Shatrughan Chauhan and Others v. Union of India 2014 (2) SCJ 1. See Also, R.D.Shetty v. International Airport
Authority (1979) 3 SCC 489.

-1-
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
the given kind and issued appropriate orders.8 In the present case there is a violation of Article 14
of the Constitution of India and therefore the petition is maintainable.

1.3) The Issue Involves a Substantial Question of Law

The counsel for the petitioner would like to contend that the present matter embodies in it a
„substantial question of law which is of general importance‟9 to the public at large which is why
such a suit is maintainable in the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India10.For a matter to qualify as a
substantial question of law, it must be debatable11, not previously settled by law of the land or a
binding precedent and should be such that answer to it would have a material bearing as to the
rights of parties before the court12.Thirdly Substantial question of law is that question of law
which has to be resolved for solving the issues of the particular case13 i.e. the material bearing on
the rights of the parties. Hence this particular matter involves a substantial question law which is
why the petition should be entertained in the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the
Constitution.

1.4) The Doctrine of Political Question is not Applicable

As per the doctrine of political question the matters which present any form of political question
should not be decided by the courts14. Its purpose is to distinguish the role of the federal
judiciary from those of the legislature and the executive, preventing the former from encroaching

8
T.V. Vatheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu (1983) 2 SCC 68. See Also, Sher Singh and Others v. State of Punjab
(1983) 2 SCC 344; Triveniben v. State of Gujarat (1988) 4 SCC 574.
9
Chunilal V. Mehta v. Century Spining and Manufacturing Co. AIR 1962 SC 1314, See also: R Subba Rao v. N
Veeraju AIR 1951 Mad 969; M/S Nek Ram Sharma and Co. v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ors. OWP(IT)
823/2000 7 December 2000
10
THE CONSTITUTION (THIRTIETH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1972, STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND
REASONS, The 8th May, 1972.
11
Chunilal v. Century Spinning Co., AIR 1962 SC 1314(1318) : 1962 SCR 549.
12
Govindaraju v. Mariamman, AIR 2005 SC 1008: (2005) 2 SCC 500; Rajeswari v.PuranIndoria, (2005) 7 SCC 60;
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd v. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 798: (1979) 2 SCC 529.
13
K.C. Mathew and Sons v. A. Sulaikha Beevi, AIR 2000 SC 3408.
14
ARNHART LARRY, POLITICAL QUESTIONS: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY FROM PLATO TO RAWLS
(Prospect Heights, Ill: Waveland Press, Pushaw,3rd Ed. 2003), See Also, ROBERT.J.Jr, “THE PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION DISPUTE, THE POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE, AND THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT”(2002).

-2-
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
on either of the latter15. The Supreme Court was asked to settle critical constitutional questions
about the nature of republican government but refused in the celebrated case of Luther v.
Borden16. Federal courts should leave certain constitutional questions to the legislative and
executive branches in any matter that is "a political question to be settled by the political
power17." The same doctrine has also seen its application in Madhav Rao Scindia v. Union of
India18 and was rejected by hon‟ble court. Though the court in State of Rajasthan v. Union of
India19 had refused to take up matter pertaining to general politics it had further more stated that
just because a question has a political complexion, does not in itself any ground for the Supreme
Court to shrink from performing its duties under the constitution if it raises an issue of
Constitutional determination20. This doctrine has also been criticized in the R.C. Poudyal v.
Union of India21. Hence the counsel for the petitioners contends that the doctrine of political
question should not be applied in this particular case.

1.5) Existence of Alternative Remedy

The right to access the Supreme Court is a Fundamental Right22. It is contended by the counsel
for the petitioner that even though the existence of an adequate legal remedy23 is a thing to be
taken into consideration24 in the matter of granting prerogative writ, this is not an absolute
ground for refusing a writ under Article 32 of the Constitution, because the powers given to the
Supreme Court under Article 32, are much wider and are not confined to the issue of prerogative
writs only25. The Supreme Court has held in various cases that existence of an alternative remedy

15
Tushnet, Mark.V.,"Law and Prudence in the Law of Justiciability: The Transformation and Disappearance of the
Political Question Doctrine." North Carolina Law Review 80, 1203–35(2002).
16
48 U.S. [7 How.] 1, 12 L. Ed. 581 [1849]
17
Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986), See Also, Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1;Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433;
Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549; Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186; Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486; Goldwater v.
Carter, 444 U.S. 996; INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919; Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224.
18
AIR 1971 SC 530: (1971) 1SCC 85, See also, A.K. Roy v. India AIR 1982 SC 710.
19
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 592 .
20
Prof. M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1580 (Wadhwa Nagpur, 5 th ed.2006).
21
AIR 1993 SC 1804.See Also, ARVIND P DATAR, COMMENTARY ON CONSTIUTION OF INDIA 566
(WADHWA NAGPUR 2nd ed. 2007)
22
Bodhisattwa v. SubhraChakroborty, AIR 1996 SC 922, See Also, Common Cause, A registered Society v. Union
of India, (1999) 6 SCC 667.
23
Rourkela MazdoorSabha v. Union of India, (1994) 5 SCC 313.
24
Titlagarh Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1983 SC 603.
25
Kochmunni Moopil Nayar, KavalapparaKottarathill v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725, See Also, Rashid
Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana, ( 1950) SCR 566.

-3-
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
would not bar the court from granting remedy. If there is a Fundamental Right which has been
infringed26, if gross injustice is done and it requires interference27.

1.6) The Act of President as under Article 74(2) is Justiciable

Judicial review is an integral part of the Constitution and is also considered to be the basic
structure of the constitution which cannot be abolished or whittled down even by the amendment
of the constitution28. Judicial review is considered to be the soul system of any society because
without it democracy and rule of law cannot be maintained29. Executive orders cannot be termed
as policy decision (involving political question) hence courts can interfere30 in such matters.

Though Article 74(2) of the Constitution provides for immunity of the president‟s decisions from
any kind of judicial review the limited provision contained in Article 74(2) cannot override the
basic provision in the constitution relating to judicial review31. In certain cases judicial review
can be extended over the immunities enjoyed by the president under Article 361 on grounds of
unconstitutionality32 or mala fide33.

Where Mala Fides is alleged, there is no bar for the courts looking into such papers and come to
its finding on the basis theory, and also in the case where the government discloses the contents
of the advice to the public34. Though a court cannot compel the government to produce the
documents which had the ministerial advice to the president35, there is nothing that prevents the
court to compel production of materials upon which the advice or reasoning was based, as the

26
Himatlal Harilal Mehta v. State of M.P. (1954) SCR 1122, See Also, Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC
1295.
27
State of Tripura v. Manoranjan Chakroborty, (2001) 10 SCC 740, 742.
28
Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr. v. Naz Foundation & Othrs. Civil Appeal No.10972 of 2013, 11th December 2013,
See also; Subhash Sharma & Ors. V. Union of India 1991 AIR 631, 1990, S.P Sampath Kumar v. Union of
India(1987) 1 SCC.
29
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 625.
30
DDA v. Joint Action Committee, (2008) 2 SCC 672 .
31
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India AIR 1994 SC 1318, See Also, S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149;
Jain R.K. v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 1769.
32
Bijoya Lashmi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1967 SC 1145(1150).
33
R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 546 .
34
Joyti Prakash Mitter v. Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court, AIR 1965 SC 564, See Also, Union of India v.
JoytiPrakashMitter, AIR 1971 SC 1316 .
35
State of Punjab v. Sodhi, AIR 1961 SC 493.

-4-
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
material cannot be said as the ministerial advice36. The Act of President as under Article 74(2) is
Justiciable. The petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is maintainable.

2. WHETHER THE CENTRAL GOVERNEMENT ENJOYS THE PREROGATIVE OF

REMOVING THE GOVERNOR

The English Common Law rule regarding the holding of office by public servants only during
the pleasure of the crown has not been adopted by the Indian Constitution in its entirety and all
its rigorous implication37.

Even before the amendment to Article 74 in the year 197638the Supreme Court had made its
stance clear on the fact that Article 74(1) had introduced a cabinet system of government into
India39 , under which the president was the constitutional ruler, so that he cannot act without or
contrary to the ministerial advice. The word shall in the first part of Article 74(1) have been
construed to be mandatory40. It no more leaves any space for admission of any form of
discretionary sphere in which where the president might act contrary to or without ministerial
advice. Indian‟s president is based on the British Model. Unlike in America where in the
president can dismiss a secretary at any time, the Indian President has no power to do so as long
as there is clear majority in the parliament41. The president is simply a titular head who endorses
whatever is thought to be done by council of minister or Prime Minister42.

Hence it is stated that the president is merely the constitutional head of the government 43. This
view was further upheld by the Supreme Court in the R.C. Cooper v. Union of India44. Where
ever the constitution requires satisfaction of the president, for the purpose of exercise of any
power or function, such satisfaction is ordinarily not personal satisfaction but satisfaction in the
constitutional sense as contemplated in a cabinet system of government, that is, the satisfaction

36
SP Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149.
37
P.L. Dhingra v. Union of India AIR 1958 SC 3, See Also, P B GAJENDRAGADKAR, THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA- IT‟S PHILOSOPHY AND BASIC POSTULATES, BOMBAY 67 (OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
1969)
38
42nd Amendment Act 1976, Section 13. See also, B. SHIVA RAO,, THE FRAMING OF INDIA‟S
CONSTITUTION SELECT DOCUMENTS 68 (Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt, Ltd., Vol. 4 2006)
39
Samsher v. State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 2192 : 1974 2 SCC 813.
40
Rao v. Indira, AIR 1971 SC 1002: (1971) 2 SCC 63.
41
Keher Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 653, See Also, Maru Ram v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 2141
42
SUBHASH. C. KASHYAP, ABAYA KASHYAP, INDIAN PRESIDENCY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND
PRACTICE 28(Universal Publication Co. New Delhi).
43
A.K. Roy v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 710
44
AIR 1970 SC 564

-5-
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
of the council of ministers, on whose aid and advice the president or governor generally exercise
all their powers and functions45.

Thus the central government does not enjoy the prerogative of removing the governor

3. WHETHER THE GOVERNORSHIP IS FRAUGHT WITH POLITICAL

OVERTONES?

Governor is an independent constitutional office which is not subject to the control of the
Government of India46. The acceptance of the State cabinet‟s advice would place the Governor in
violation of the gubernatorial oath, which incidentally also is, to preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution.47The position of the Governor as the Constitutional head of State as a unit of the
Indian Union as well as the formal channel of communication between the Union and the State
Government, who is appointed under Article 155 of the Constitution "by the President by
Warrant under his hand and seal.48 The governor is the „linchpin of the constitutional apparatus
of the state‟ and he has been criticized for want of impartiality and sagacity and for using used by
the central government „for its political end‟.49 Administrative Reforms Commission has
expressed the view that the President‟s authority to appoint and remove governors departed from
the federal principle.50 Governors had been accused of political partnership and for acting as
agents of the Central government and not as holder of independent constitutional office.51
Former governor and cabinet minister C.Subramaniam believed that the governor had „become a

45
Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, (1974) 2 SCC 831,.See Also, M.P. Special Police Establishment v. State of M.P.
SCC (L&S) 550; State of Maharashtra v. RamdasShrinivasNayak, (1982) 2 SCC 463, Rajendra Singh Verma v. Lt.
Governor ( NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 1; Narmada BacchaoAndolan v. State of M.P. (2011) 12 SCC 333; Ram
Chandra Nayak v. State of Orissa, AIR 2002 Ori 25. Pu Myllai Hlychho v. State of Mirzoram, (2005) 2 SCC 92;
Bhuri Nath v. State of J&K, (1997) 2 SCC745; Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P., AIR 1966 SC 1987; State of U.P. v.
Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti, 1995 Supp. (2) SCC; S.R. Chowdray v. State Of Punjab, (2001) 7 SCC 126; Ashis
Handa v. Chief Justice of High Court of P&H, (1996) 3 SCC 145; Brundaban Nayak v. Election Commission of
India, AIR 1965 SC 1892; ECI v. Subrammaniyam Sahoo, 1996 4 SCC 104; Supreme Court Advocates on Record
Association v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC; University of Allahabad v. Anand Prakash Mishra, (1997) 10 SCC
264; Maluram v. Union of India, (1981) SCC 107; Indramany Pyralal Gupta v. WR Natsey, (2006) AIR 1963 SC
274
46
Sri.A.M.Bhaskar v The State Of Karnataka on 15 July, 2013, WRIT PETITION NOS.25964-25967 OF 2013
47
M.P.Special Police Establishment v. State of M.P, (2004) 8 SCC 788.
48
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India – 1977 (3) SCC 592.
49
SarkariaCommisiion Report Vol. 1 pp 115, 120. See also; SUBHASH C KASHYAP, INDIAN CONSTITUTION
CONFLICT AND CONTROVERSIES 402 (Vitasta Publishing Pvy. Ltd.).
50
ARC, Report of the Study Team, p. 273. See also; GRANVILLE AUSTIN, THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION:
CORNERSTONE OF A NATION 255 (Oxford University Press 15 th impression 2010)
51
Singh L.P, Guide, Philosopher and Friend‟ in Sorabjee, et al Sage or Saboteur p 37.

-6-
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
party appointment‟, serving the party believed that the governor had „become a party
appointment‟, serving the party rather than „the interest of the nation‟.52 Governor had been
„made to function as an agent of the Union Government.53

The governor‟s tenure came to an issue because it was believed widely that the central
government used uncertainty of tenure, which included transfer to another state, to influence his
decisions of governor and impair his capacity to „withstand pressures, resist extraneous
influences and act impartially in the discharge of his discretionary functions‟54. The exercise of
power to remove or transfer a governor must cause grave disquiet in the public mind.55According
to Sarkaria Commission, of the sixty-six gubernatorial tenures between 1947 and 31 March 1967
thirty two lasted the full five year term. Of the eighty –eight tenures, for the period from 1 April
1967 to 31 October 1986, only eighteen lasted for five years terms.56

Therefore it can be clearly asserted that though governorship should not be fraught by political
overtones yet in reality it is fraught by political overtones.

4. WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF PLEASURE IS ANTITHETICAL TO THE

INDEPENDENCE OF GUBERNATORIAL ASSIGNMENTS?

The „Doctrine of Pleasure‟57 rests with the President according to Article 156(1) for the removal
of governor. But English Common Law has not been adopted entirely and with all its rigorous
applications.58The President has thus been made a formal or Constitutional head of the executive
and the real executive powers are vested in the minister or Cabinet. 59But English Common Law
has not been adopted entirely and with all its rigorous applications.60 The President is symbolic,
the Central government is the reality even as the governor is the formal head and sole repository

52
C Subramaniam Oral History Transcript (1990 Interview „SL No. 1, „A‟, draft‟,p.14); Granvillie Austin working
on Constitution cite
53
Bangalore Seminar Report, JCPS, Special Number 1984 p 400.
54
Sarkaria Commission Report, vol. 1 p. 125.See Also, DR. SUBHASH C. KASHYAP, UNION-STATE
RELATIONS IN INDA 26(The Institute of Constitutional & Parliamentary Studies 1969)
55
H.M.SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW,1070( Vol. 1).
56
SarkariaCommision,vol 1 p. 125.
57
Dunn v. Queen1896 (1) QB 116. See Also, Garth Nettheim (1975). Dunn v. The Queen Revisited. The Cambridge
Law Journal, 34, pp 253-281;Terrell v. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, [1953] 2 Q.B. 482.
58
State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid (1) AIR 1954 SC 245. See Also, Moti Ram Deka Etc. v. General manager, N.E.F
Railways, Maligaon, Pandu, Etc, 1964 AIR 600.
59
Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur And Ors. vs The State Of Punjab AIR 1955 SC 549
60
State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid (1) AIR 1954 SC 245. See Also, Moti Ram Deka Etc. v. General manager, N.E.F
Railways, Maligaon, Pandu, Etc, 1964 AIR 600.

-7-
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
of the executive power but is incapable of acting except on and according to the aid and advice
of Council of Ministers.61 The present provision under which the governor can be removed or
transferred at the Pleasure of the president, which in effect is really the pleasure of the Prime
Minister, should be changed. It is only then that the States can be assured of the independence of
their governor.62 Tenure of governor office at the pleasure of the President, which means in
effect the Union Government is most unsatisfactory and is liable to grave abuse. 63 The Doctrine
of Pleasure has been used at „willful pleasure‟, „where the Centre may have shortened the tenure
of a particular governor for political reasons.64

There may be one practice called „constitutional‟ which is falling into desuetude and there may
be another practice which is creeping into use but is not yet constitutional.65Mr.M.C.Setalvad
opined on governor‟s power that in the new setup it would be in appropriate for a governor to
have direct contacts with secretaries and head of department.66 Such a remark demonstrates the
fear of uncertainty by way of Doctrine of Pleasure affecting the action of a governor in power.

Thus the doctrine of pleasure is antithetical to the independence of gubernatorial assignments.

61
Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 107.
62
White Paper on the office of the Governor by Government of Karnataka, September 22, 1983, See Also, V.R
Krishna Iyer, Constitutional Miscellary 45 (Eastern Book Company 2nd 2007).
63
H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA 1070(Universal Law Publishing Co. 4th ed. 2008).
64
Dr.DHAWAN, „PRESIDENT‟S RULE IN THE STATE‟,118( N.M Tripathi Pvt. Ltd, 1979)
65
JOHN.P.MACKINTOSH,THE BRITISH CABINET, 13 (Stevens and Sons Ltd. London 1977)
66
VALMIKI CHOUDHARY, Dr. RAJENDRA PRASAD: CORRESPONDENCE AND SELECT
DOCUMENTS,DELHI, pp 104-10 and 280-91(Allied Publishers 1991,ed. Vol.14). K.M.MUNSHI, INDIAN
CONSTITUTIONAL DOCUMENTS 574 (Bombay Bhartiya Vidhya Bhawan Vol.1 1967).

-8-
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 5. WHETHER THE IMPUGNED DECISION OF REMOVING THE PETITIONER IS
ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTIUTION AND HENCE VOID?
5.1) The Impugned Decision Is In Violation To Rule Of Law:

Krishna Iyer J. observed “absolute power is anathema under our Constitutional order” and that
naked and arbitrary exercise of power is bad in law.”67 There cannot be any power that is
essentially unchecked and uncontrolled in a State governed by a Constitution. All powers and
competence have to be locatable, either explicitly or implicitly within the Constitution, and
exercised within four corners of Constitutional permissibility values and scheme. Courts should
be very careful when vast powers are claimed.68

The principle nature of the doctrine of pleasure emits absolute power in the arms of President to
remove a governor at his pleasure. Such a doctrine disturbs the principle pillar on which
Constitution was framed i.e. Rule of law. It is a dangerous encounter to have a doctrine derived
by a Constitutional organ which supersedes the principle on which the Constitution was itself
established.

5.2) Governor Shall Hold Office During The Pleasure Of The President, Is Not A Licence
To Act Arbitrarily, Whimsically Or Capriciously

Democratic Republic obligation corresponding to benefit of held is to bear discipline and rigor of
Constitutionalism essence of which is accountability of power.69 Limitation on exercise of Power
vested by Constitution in any organ of State, have to be exercised within four corners of
Constitution.70Appointment of the governor is a political affair and is governed by the
consideration of party politics.71 The power of President for removal of a governor is not limited
by any provision of the Constitution, nor is any legal remedy available for that. 72 The order of
the President is conclusive on the point and is non-justiciable.73 A repository of power acts ultra

67
Baldev Raj v. Union of India AIR 1981 SC 70.
68
GVK Industries Ltd. v. ITO (2011) 4 SCC 36.
69
NandiniSundar v. State of Chattisgarh (2011) 7 SCC 547.
70
Ram JethMalani v. Union of India (2011) 8 SCC 1.
71
N.S Gehlot, “The Office of the Governor: It‟s Constitutional Image and Reality. See also J.C. Johari, The
Constitution of India A Politico Legal Study 206 (Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd. 3rd 2004).
72
Surya v. Union of Inida AIR 1982 Raj 1.
73
DJ De, The Constitution of India 511(Asia Law House 3rd ed. 2011)

-9-
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
vires when he acts in excess of his powers in narrow sense or when he abuses his power by
acting in bad faith or for an inadmissible purpose or an irrelevant ground or without regard to
element considerations or gross reasonableness.74The impromptu observation made by Mr.
Jungle followed by sudden removal of Mr. Jungle is a seal and symbol for act for the power in
hand without element consideration or ground reasonableness.

5.3) Disturbance To Rule Of Law Smashes Equality Before Law Injuring The Basic
Structure Doctrine

Equality is ‘ante thesis to arbitrariness’ as an essential core to constitution scheme.75 Violation

of natural justice results in arbitrariness leads to violation of equality under Article 14 grounded
in Constitution.76In the case of „Dhaniram Loha’,77it was stated that the reason is the heartbeat of
every conclusion & without the same it becomes lifeless.78 It should be based on „intelligible
differentia‟ which must have a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. 79 In the
case of „State of Andhra Pradesh v. G.Ramakishan’80, the state government was held
discriminatory for failing to provide an intelligible differentia.

The expression arbitrary means, act done in an unreasonable manner, as fixed or done
capriciously or at pleasure without adequate determining principle not found in nature of things,
non-rational, not done or acting according to reason or judgment depending on will alone.81In the
case of „Naraindas‟82 the principle was laid down, if power conferred on any authority is vagrant

74
ShriSitaram v. Union of India AIR 1990 SC 1277.
75
E.P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555.See also, A.P. Agrawal v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, AIR
2000 SC 205; Sudhir Chandra v. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., AIR 1984 SC 1064; Asha Sharma v. Chandigarh Adm.,
(2011) 10 SCC 86.See also, K C WHEARE, MODERN CONSTITUTIONS 143(OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
1958)
76
State of Maharashtra v. Kamal S Durgule 1985 1 SCC 234. See Also, DevDutta v. Union of India 2008 8 SCC
725. See also, I JENNINGS, SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION 70(OXFORD
UNIVERSITY PRESS 1953).
77
State of Orrisa v. Dhaniram Loha, AIR 2004 SC 1794. See also, Veekay Connections (P) Ltd. v. National Small
Industries Corp. Ltd., AIR 2005 All 57 (59).
78
DR. L.M. SINGHVAI, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 299 (Modern Law Publication 2nd ed. 2007).
79
LaxmiKhandsari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 873, (891). See Also, State of Haryana v. Jai Singh,
(2003) 9 SCC 114, Welfare Assam ARP v. Ranjit P.Gohil, (2003) 9 SCC 358; Municipal Committee, Patiala v.
Model Town Residents Assn., (2007) 8 SCC 669.
80
State of Andhya Pradesh v. G. Ramakishan, AIR 2001 SC 324. See also, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Anjana
Devi, (2009) 5 SCC 108; State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh, (2009) 5 SCC 65.
81
State of Tamil Nadu v. Shyam Sunder, (2011) 8 SCC 737.
82
Naraindas v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1974 SC 1232.

- 10 -
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
and unconditional and „no standards‟83 or principles are laid down by the statute to guide and
control the exercise of power, the statute would be violative of the equality clause because it
would permit arbitrary exercise of power.84

Doctrine of pleasure of the President can be challenged only on the ground that it is camouflage
and as such is violative fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution and
not on any other grounds.85Thus the doctrine is subjected to limited judicial review.86 Equality
before Law and absolute discretion to grant or deny benefit of the law are diametrically opposed
to each other and cannot co-exist.87It does not dispense with the need for a cause for withdrawal
of the pleasure.”88In the present matrix of facts the sudden and abrupt removal of Mr. Junglee in
dark stands arbitrary.

Thus the impugned decision is in violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution

83
Khan Chand v. State of Punjab, (1974) UJSC 66.
84
Punjab Dairy Development Board v. Cepham Milk Specialities Ltd., (2004)8 SCC 621.See also,KishanLalLakhmi
Chand v. State of Orissa, (1993) Supp. 4 SCC 461;RaichurmathamPrabhakar v. RawatmalDugar, (2004) 4 SCC 766;
Gurudev Singh v. Union if India,(2002) 1 SCC 545.
85
Union of India and Ors v. Major.S.P. Sharma and Ors Civil Appeal Nos.2951-2957 of 2001. See Also, N.R.Ajwani
v. Union of India and Ors,95 (2002) DLT 770.
86
In ... vs By Advs.Sri.O.V.Radhakrishnan, Wa.No. 347 Of 2012
87
Sudhir Chandra v. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd AIR 1984 SC 1064.
88
B.P. Singhal v. Union of India and Another [(2010) 6 SCC 331 at 352],

- 11 -
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 PRAYER
For the foregoing reasons, Mr Jungle, Petitioner, respectfully requests the Hon‟ble Court to
adjudge and declare that:

1. The Petition maintainable before this Hon‟ble Court.

2. A writ of Certiorari, quashing the removal of the Governor.

3. A writ of Mandamus to respondents to allow the said Governor to complete his tenure.

The Court may also make any such order as it may deem fit in terms of equity, justice and due
conscience. And for this act of kindness the Applicants shall as duty bound ever humbly pray.

sd/-

Counsel for the Petitioner

XII
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER