A Governor continues in office beyond the five-year term until the successor assumes office.

The petitioner, a retired Professor of Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur, filed a writ petition in the nature of pro bono publico seeking directions to the respondents to appoint a new Governor of Madhya Pradesh and, in the alternative, appropriate directions in the changed circumstances of the case.

The petitioner contended that the incumbent Governor had completed five years in office on 7 July 2026 and therefore ought to be removed; he further suggested that the Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court be appointed Governor.

The Union of India opposed the petition, relying on the constitutional provision that a Governor continues in office until the successor enters upon office.

The Court also noted that the petitioner had not disclosed his bona fides, public standing, or public-spirited antecedents as required for a public interest litigation under the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008.

Whether the incumbent Governor ceases to hold office automatically upon expiry of the five-year period prescribed under Article 156(3) of the Constitution, where no successor has entered upon office?

Whether the writ petition, filed as a public interest litigation without disclosure of the petitioner’s bona fides and public-spirited antecedents, was maintainable?

Article 153 of the Constitution contemplates the existence of a Governor for each State, while Article 156(1) provides that the Governor holds office during the pleasure of the President. Article 156(3) prescribes a five-year term but its proviso expressly provides that, notwithstanding expiry of the term, the Governor continues in office until the successor enters upon office.

Article 160 empowers the President to make arrangements for discharge of the Governor’s functions in contingencies not otherwise provided for.

In Krishna Ballabh Sahay v. Commission of Inquiry, AIR 1969 SC 258, the Supreme Court held that the proviso to Article 156(3) excludes any illegality arising from continuation beyond five years and ensures that there is no constitutional interregnum; the incumbent continues until the successor assumes office.

Further, Chapter 10 Rule 27 and Chapter 13A Rule 13 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008 require a PIL petitioner to disclose relevant public standing, professional status, bona fide public-spirited antecedents, and the nature of any personal interest.

The Court held that the petitioner’s reliance on the five-year term under Article 156(3) overlooked the express proviso to that provision. The proviso operates notwithstanding expiry of the term and permits the incumbent Governor to continue until the successor actually enters office, thereby preventing a constitutional vacuum mandated against by Article 153.

Applying Krishna Ballabh Sahay, the Court concluded that expiry of the five-year period did not, by itself, terminate the Governor’s authority or render the incumbent functus officio.

The Court also found the petition procedurally deficient because the petitioner had not disclosed the bona fides and public-spirited antecedents required under the applicable PIL Rules.

Accordingly, the challenge to the incumbent’s continuance and the request for appointment of another person as Governor were misconceived.

The petition was also found deficient as a PIL for failure to disclose the petitioner’s bona fides and public standing.

The writ petition was therefore dismissed as misconceived.