Jabalpur, September 17, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking directions for the appointment of a new Governor for the state, holding that the plea was misconceived in view of the constitutional provisions governing the Governor’s tenure.
A division bench comprising Justices Anand Pathak and B.P. Sharma rejected the petition filed by M.A. Khan, a retired professor of Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur.
The petitioner had sought directions to the respondents, including the Secretary to the President of India, for appointment of a new Governor. He argued that the incumbent had completed five years in office and that the term had expired on July 7, 2026.
Relying on Articles 153, 154, 155, 156 and 160 of the Constitution, the petitioner submitted that the Governor is an important constitutional functionary who also serves as Chancellor of universities and exercises certain appellate powers. He further sought removal of the incumbent and appointment of the Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court as Governor.
The Union government and the state opposed the plea, relying on the proviso to Article 156(3), which states that a Governor continues in office after the expiry of the five-year term until the successor assumes office.
The respondents argued that the petition was premature and not maintainable.
The High Court also noted that the petitioner had not disclosed his bona fides as a public-spirited citizen, as required under the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008 for filing a PIL.
On merits, the bench relied on the constitutional provision that a Governor shall, notwithstanding the expiration of the term, continue to hold office until the successor enters office.
The court also referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Krishna Ballabh Sahay and Others v. Commission of Inquiry and Others, which clarified the legal position concerning continuation of a Governor beyond the five-year term and the need to avoid a constitutional vacuum.
The bench observed that the Constitution does not contemplate a vacancy in the office of Governor merely because the five-year term has expired. The incumbent remains in office until a successor assumes charge.
In view of the clear constitutional position, the court rejected the petitioner’s arguments and dismissed the PIL as misconceived.
FOLLOW NOW
