Disapproving the practice of replacing governors after a new government comes to power at the centre, the Supreme Court today said that the governors of states cannot be changed in an arbitrary and capricious manner with the change of power.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan held that a governor can be replaced only under "compelling" reasons for proven misconduct or other irregularities.

The apex court said though the Governor is appointed and remains in office at the pleasure of the President, he or she cannot be removed merely because they are "not in sync" with the party in power.

The bench said the Governor can be removed only under "compelling reasons" and what the compelling reasons are depends on facts and situations of a particular case.

During the arguments, the Centre had contended that the conflict of Governor's view with the national policy could invite his/her removal from the office by cutting short the five-year tenure.

The Centre had said that the Governors act as a bridge between the Centre and the state governments and as such they cannot disagree on their own with the views of the government.

Under the mandate of democracy if a particular party is voted to power with particular socio-economic agenda, the Governors cannot say they do not agree with that, it had argued.

The bench also comprising Justices S H Kapadia, R V Raveendran, B Sudershan Reddy and P Sathasivam gave an unanimous verdict on the issue.

The landmark decision came on a PIL filed was in 2004 by then BJP MP B P Singhal challenging the removal of Governors of Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana and Orissa by the previous UPA government.

The PIL had contended that the President could not have removed the Governors of four states on the advice of the Centre disregarding the Constitutional provision which fixed five-year term for them.

Vishnu Kant Shastri, Babu Parmanand, Kailashpati Mishra and Kidarnath Sahni had then been removed from their gubernatorial posts in Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Gujarat and Goa respectively.

Dismissing Governors started in 1977

The practice of dismissing Governors with the change of guard at the Centre began in 1977 when the Janata Party came to power routing the Congress and took a decision to replace the Governors appointed by the previous regime.

That was the first time a non-Congress Government was in power. Subsequent governments, whether that of Congress or others, then made it a practice.

In October 1980, then Tamil Nadu Governor Prabhudas Patwari was dismissed, demonstrating that the President's "pleasure" under Article 156 (1) can be used by the Prime Minister to dismiss any Governor for political reasons, and without assigning any cause.

In 1981, then Rajasthan Governor Raghulal Tilak too was dismissed from office.

When Tilak was removed from office, the state High Court held that Presidential pleasure contemplated in Article 156 was "not justiciable".

Incidentally, the decision of the Morarji Desai Cabinet in 1977 to replace the Governors was sent back without signing by then acting President B D Jatti.

The Cabinet sent the proposal a second time to the President who signed it as per constitutional norms.

The United Progressive Alliance government had dismissed four Governors -- Kidar Nath Sahni (Goa), Kailashpati Mishra (Gujarat), Babu Parmanand (Haryana) and Vishnu Kant Shastri (Uttar Pradesh), who had been appointed during the tenure of the previous National Democratic Alliance government.

Though the UPA in 2004 did not specify any reason, it was felt that there were a combination of more than one reasons for the removal of Governors.

Government sources then said the sacked Governors were political appointees who had been sent to their respective states with a specific purpose and that they made no effort to hide their RSS-BJP background when in office.

The Congress said the four Governors were sacked not because they belonged to a particular party but because they were "for a long time associated with the Sangh Parivar".

One of the four sacked Governors, Parmanand, was reported to have made an appeal to an audience in Rewari to vote for A B Vajpayee in the run-up to the election.

Interestingly, the UPA did not touch other NDA appointees like T N Chaturvedi (Karnataka), Madan Lal Khurana (Rajasthan) and M Rama Jois (Jharkhand).

Earlier in December 1989, then President R Venkataraman, on the advice of the National Front government led by V P Singh, had asked all the Governors to resign simply because another party had come to power at the Centre.

Nine years later, when the BJP came to power it was reported that then Union Home Secretary B P Singh asked three Governors -- of Gujarat, Goa and Mizoram -- to put in their papers.

Disapproving the practice of replacing Governors after a new government comes to power at the Centre, the Supreme Court today said that the Governors of states cannot be changed in an arbitrary and capricious manner with the change of power.

The landmark decision came on a PIL filed in 2004 by then BJP MP B P Singhal challenging the removal of Governors by the previous UPA government.

A Commission headed by Justice Rajinder Singh Sarkaria, which went into Centre-State relations, had said Governors should not be appointed without consulting the states they were being sent to.

It also suggested that "persons who have not taken too great a part in politics generally and particularly in the recent past" should not be appointed Governors.

The Constitution Review Panel headed by former Chief Justice M N Venkatachalliah supported Justice Sarkaria's recommendations.

Article 156 does not lay down the grounds upon which a Governor may be removed by the President, nor does it require that the reasons be disclosed.

It is assumed that the President shall use the power to meet with cases of gross delinquency such as bribery, corruption, treason and the like, or conduct unbecoming of the high office, or violative of the Constitution.

The normal tenure of a Governor's office is five years, but it may be terminated earlier by dismissal by the President, at whose "pleasure" he holds the office or by resignation of the Governor.