Bombay High Court Delivers Split Verdict On Central Govt Power To Substitute Nominated Members Of Cantonment Board

The Bombay High Court recently delivered a split verdict on the issue of powers of the Central Government to substitute a nominated member of a Cantonment Board.

A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale delivered divergent views on the issue pertaining to the removal of a member of Deolali Cantonment Board in Nashik, before the end of her tenure, which was to complete on February 10, 2026.

Justice Mohite-Dere held that the Central Government must record its satisfaction before varying the constitution of such Board and that it must follow the due procedure of law and not arbitrarily remove/substitute a serving member. The judge further held that the rules prescribed under the Cantonment Act 2006, which especially lay down a procedure for removal of a member, must be followed scrupulously.

Justice Gokhale on the other hand opined that the provisions for removing a person attach stigma to the person and that the Central Government, being a nominating authority, can invoke the "Doctrine of Pleasure" and substitute a nominated member by appointing/electing another member under the said Act of 2006.

As per facts, the petitioner Pritam Adhav, was nominated as a member of the Deolali Cantonment Board from time-to-time from 2021 and her latest nomination as a member was notified on January 3, 2025 and her tenure was fixed till February 10, 2026.

However, as alleged by Adhav, she learnt about the fact that the authorities were planning to nominate some other person, recommended by Maharashtra's Chief Minister and substitute her. She highlighted this "political interference" and thus argued that the decision to substitute her and nominate another individual was arbitrary and illegal.

Justice Mohite-Dere's Ruling

In her judgment, Justice Mohite-Dere noted that section 13 of the Cantonment Act details the procedure and also the role of the Central Government in nominating members to the Board. She also took into account section 34, which lists down circumstances under which a serving member can be removed and especially the fact that the said provision provides for issuing show cause notice and following the principles of natural justice.

"The difficulty with the impugned action is that while varying the constitution of the Board was permissible, the substitution of the Petitioner midway during her notified tenure is unsupported by any provision of law. The Act provides for the removal of a nominated member only in accordance with Section 34 of the Act. The impugned notification is, therefore, vitiated for want of authority," Justice Mohite-Dere held.

The judge agreed with senior Advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, appearing for the Petitioner, who argued that his client has a vested right to continue to hold office till the expiry of her term and that she can be removed only by following the procedure provided under Section 34 of the Act, pertaining to the 'removal of members' and also that the Petitioner was not given any notice of removal, nor was there any reason recorded by the authorities to cause her removal.

"The Petitioner's substitution without compliance with Section 34 amounts to her removal in substance, even if described as a 'substitution'. The authorities could not have bypassed the safeguards under Section 34 by resorting to Section 13(3), which only permits the nomination of a member in consultation with the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief. Infact, the Act does not contemplate the substitution of an existing member without due process," Justice Mohite-Dere opined.

"In the present case, the Petitioner's tenure was fixed till February 10, 2026. Her substitution on March 6, 2025 without notice, reasons, or a vacancy notification, is arbitrary, illegal and violative of the Act as well as of the principles of natural justice. The impugned notification is therefore liable to be quashed," the judge added.

Since section 34 provides for compliance with principles of natural justice, the same prevents the Government from removing a member arbitrarily 'at will.'

Therefore, Justice Mohite-Dere held, "Thus, the power to appoint a nominated member to a Cantonment Board does not include the power to remove the said member 'at the will' of the Central Government. No doubt, the Government holds the authority to remove nominated members; however, such power is explicitly constrained by the grounds and procedural safeguards specified in the Cantonments Act, particularly, Section 34. Thus, the power to remove a nominated member is addressed specifically in Section 34 and the same is not dependent on the 'doctrine of pleasure' and as such it requires valid reasons and due process."

The judge held that if the contentions of the Central Government are accepted, the same would vest the Executive with an unguided power to terminate a statutory tenure, which would be inconsistent with the constitutional guarantees of fairness and non-arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 21.

"The rule of law demands that even in the exercise of administrative discretion, the action must be just, fair, and reasonable. The procedural safeguards in Section 34 embody these very constitutional values," the judge underlined.

Findings By Justice Gokhale

Justice Gokhale in her separate judgment, held that no provision in the Cantonment Act provide for any fixed tenure for nominated members of the Board, which fact the judge held, reflects the legislative intent.

"In the absence of any minimum tenure prescribed for nominated members of the varied Board under Section 13(2)(c), the tenure of such a nominee is at the pleasure of the Central Government, considering the oversight and administrative authority vested in the Cental Government over Cantonment Boards. The Petitioner's complaint of her unjust removal, midway during the tenure of the varied Board has no substance. Even, the notification/s nominating her as member of the varied Board is silent in that regard," Justice Gokhale said.

She cannot claim a minimum tenure, where there is none. Thus, the contention that she was removed prior to the expiry of her term is misconceived, the judge added. As regards the mandatory satisfaction of the Central Government, Justice Gokhale noted that 'Satisfaction' is a pre-requisite only to exercise the power to vary the constitution of the Boards in special circumstances.

"Once the Notification is issued, change in composition follows and separate satisfaction is not contemplated. Section 13(3) of the Act merely requires the nomination of a member to be made in consultation with the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief and notified in the Official Gazette. Moreover, the other two members are ex-officio members. Hence, question of separate satisfaction in relation to the composition of the varied Board does not arise," Justice Gokhale held.

The judge further held that the Central Government being the nominating authority has full powers to substitute a serving member under the doctrine of Pleasure.

"The nominating authority is fully empowered to nominate a person and to rescind or cancel his/her nomination and nominate any other person. Suffice to say that the present case is not that of appointment but of nomination. There is a difference between the two. It is the pleasure of the nominating authority, and no right accrues to the nominee to hold office for a particular period," the judge held.

Further, the judge while referring to various judgments of the Supreme Court, said that the scope of judicial review in matters relating to appointments where the doctrine of pleasure is attracted is extremely limited. The contours of judicial review are confined to finding out if the exercise of the power was "arbitrary, capricious or mala fide." There is no requirement of any notice preceding exercise of the power or to assign any cause for exercise of the power.

Justice Gokhale in her judgment, held that the Central Government's powers are unfettered in this issue.

"There is no provision in the Cantonment Act, placing fetters on the powers of the Central Government while exercising its pleasure doctrine, save and except to follow the consultation process. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the power exercised by the Central Government in issuing the impugned Notification is a colorable exercise of power," the judge held.

Further, the judge said that removing a member under section 34 would come along with 'stigma' but the removal/replacement of the petitioner by the nominating authority is removal without any stigma attached.

"There is no allegation made against the Petitioner that she has committed some infraction mentioned in Section 34 of the Act. There is also no stigma attached to her replacement by another member. The Petitioner is a member, nominated to the Board, pursuant to the notification varying the constitution of the Board. The change in composition of a regular Board follows such variance. Hence, if a nominated member is sought to be replaced at the pleasure of the nominating authority, no cause is required for such replacement. The Petitioner is not replaced on any ground mentioned in Section 34. The said provision is wholly inapplicable to the replacement of the Petitioner," the judge explained.

Concluding her judgment, Justice Gokhale opined that once the Doctrine of Pleasure is held to apply, such removal neither offends any Article of the Constitution of India nor the same is against any public policy or democratic reforms enshrined in the Constitution.

"There is also no question of any violation of principles of natural justice in not affording any opportunity to the nominated member before their removal, nor their removal puts any stigma on the performance or character of the nominated member," the judge held.

Appearance:

Senior Advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni along with Advocates Tejas Deshmukh, Ronak Utagikar, Onkar Somvanshi Sagar Kursija for the PetitionerAdditional Solicitor General Anil Singh along with Advocate Sangeeta Yadav represented the Authorities.Advocate Neeta Masurkar represented the Deolali Cantonment Board. Senior Advocate Rajiv Patil along with Advocates Ajinkya Jaibhave and Anusha Pradhan Jaibhave represented the New Nominated Member.

Case Title: Pritam Dinkar Adhav vs Union of India (Writ Petition 3695 of 2025)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment