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 RulingIn 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...

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

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Narsi Benwal

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

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers