Supreme Court Affirms Governor’s Executive Powers Are Exercised on Council of Ministers’ Aid and Advice, Sets Aside Termination Orders of Judicial Probationers

In landmark verdict in Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974), Constitutional Bench clarifies that President and Governor act as constitutional heads bound by ministerial advice in executive matters, dismissing the doctrine of “personal satisfaction” for routine appointments and removals under Articles 234 and 311.

The Supreme Court of India, in a significant Constitutional Bench judgment delivered on August 23, 1974, in the case of Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, has clarified the nature of executive powers exercised by the President and the Governors under the Indian Constitution. The Bench, comprising seven judges led by Chief Justice A.N. Ray, has decisively held that the President and Governors, as constitutional heads of the Union and States respectively, exercise all their powers and functions-including appointments and removals of civil servants including judicial officers-on the aid and advice of their respective Councils of Ministers, except in a few narrow spheres where the Constitution expressly requires discretion.

The case arose when two probationary officers of the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch), Shamsher Singh and Ishwar Chand Agarwal, had their services terminated by orders passed in the name of the Governor but without his personal satisfaction or involvement. The appellants contended that under Article 234 of the Constitution, which vests the power of appointment of subordinate judges in the Governor, and Article 311 that protects civil servants from dismissal without inquiry, the Governor must exercise these powers personally and cannot delegate or act on ministerial advice. They relied heavily on an earlier Supreme Court decision in Sardari Lal v. Union of India (1971), which had interpreted “satisfaction of the President or Governor” as personal satisfaction in certain contexts.

The State, on the other hand, argued that the Governor acts only on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in executive matters, and that appointment and removal of judicial officers are executive functions and not personal functions of the Governor.

The Supreme Court undertook an exhaustive analysis of the constitutional scheme, legislative history, Constituent Assembly debates, and precedents. It emphasized that India has adopted the British-style parliamentary system of Cabinet Government rather than a Presidential system. The President and Governor are constitutional or formal heads who exercise their powers on the aid and advice of their Ministers. The Court clarified that the term “satisfaction” or “personal satisfaction” in the Constitution must be understood in this constitutional context, meaning the satisfaction of the President or Governor acting with the aid and advice of their Council of Ministers, and not as a personal or individual satisfaction divorced from ministerial advice.

The Court distinguished this general principle from very limited exceptions where the Governor may be required by the Constitution to act in his discretion, such as in Articles 163(2), 371A, and 356 relating to law and order, special district council matters, or reporting failure of constitutional machinery. Even in these areas, the Governor’s discretion is to be exercised harmoniously with the Council of Ministers as far as possible.

Regarding the termination of the appellants’ services, the Court held that the power to appoint or remove subordinate judicial officers is an executive function exercised by the Governor on the advice of the Council of Ministers. The impugned orders terminating the probationary judicial officers’ services without following the procedural safeguards of Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952, and Rule 7(3) of the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951, were held to be invalid. The Court observed that if termination is for misconduct or inefficiency and involves punishment, it must comply with Article 311 and provide a fair opportunity of hearing. The High Court’s role in controlling subordinate judiciary was also underscored, with criticism that it abdicated its duty by delegating inquiry to the Vigilance Department.

The Court ordered that the termination orders against the appellants be set aside, declaring Ishwar Chand Agarwal a member of the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) and reinstating Shamsher Singh’s service rights with limited relief as he was employed elsewhere.

This judgment reaffirms the supremacy of the parliamentary Cabinet system in India, preserves the constitutional role of the Governor and President as symbolic heads acting on ministerial advice, and strengthens procedural safeguards for civil servants, especially judicial officers on probation.

Statutory provisions:- Articles 77(3), 74(1), 75(3), 163(1), 163(2), 166(3), 234, 235, 310, 311(2), 356, Rules 7(3) of Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951, Rule 9 of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952

Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 79875