The Bombay High Court recently delivered a split verdict on the question whether the Central Government of India may unilaterally remove or substitute a nominated member of a Cantonment Board before the end of their tenure. The matter arose in a petition filed by Pritam Dinkar Adhav, who had been nominated as a member of the Deolali Cantonment Board in Nashik. Her latest nomination was notified on January 3, 2025, and her tenure was scheduled till February 10, 2026. However, she learned that the authorities were planning to nominate another person in her place — allegedly on the recommendation of the State’s Chief Minister — and substitute her before the expiry of her term. She challenged the prospective substitution, arguing that it was arbitrary and illegal.
A division bench comprising Justice Revati Mohite‑Dere and Justice Neela Gokhale rendered divergent judgments. Justice Mohite-Dere held that the Central Government — though invested with the power to nominate members under Cantonments Act, 2006 — cannot arbitrarily remove or substitute a serving nominated member before completion of her notified tenure. According to her, the Act provides a specific mechanism for removal under Section 34. That provision requires that a member may be removed only on certain grounds such as disqualification, prolonged absence, breach of duty, or abuse of position, and only after being afforded a reasonable opportunity to show cause. Since none of these grounds applied and since no show-cause notice was issued, the substitution effected in March 2025 — without notice, reasons or vacature notification — was in substance a removal, and therefore unlawful. The judge held that the power to appoint does not implicitly carry a power to remove at will.
By contrast, Justice Gokhale found that the statutory framework did not prescribe a fixed tenure for nominated members, and that once the Central Government exercises its nominating power, it may substitute a nominee at its “pleasure”. She observed that no provision imposes a minimum period for retaining a nominated member, and that the Central Government — as nominating authority — enjoys full discretion to change the composition of the Board without any requirement to give reasons, notice or opportunity of hearing. In her view, the substitution did not amount to “removal” requiring compliance with Section 34, and since no stigma attached to the substitution, the doctrine of pleasure was applicable and the Government’s decision was valid.
Thus, the Court — by issuing contradictory judgments — left unresolved the core question whether the Central Government’s power to substitute nominated members of Cantonment Boards is subject to the safeguards under Section 34 or is governed by the doctrine of pleasure. In doing so, the Bombay High Court affirmed that the matter may warrant further judicial consideration, and highlighted the tension between statutory safeguards and executive discretion in the governance of cantonment boards.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.