The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking directions for the appointment of the Governor since the term of the old Governor expired on July 7, 2026. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 369]

Remarking the petition as "misconceived", the division bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice BP Sharma observed that Article 156(3) of the Constitution does not allow a "Constitutional vacuum" observing,

"This is a proviso, which ensures that there shall never be a Constitutional vacuum and the Governor shall continue to hold office until his successor entered upon his office. Therefore, vacuum over Gubernatorial post is not contemplated under Constitution".

The petitioner, a retired professor of Jawahar Lal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, filed a public interest litigation seeking directions for the appointment of the Governor of MP as per Article 153 of the Constitution, which mandates that there shall be a Governor for each state.

The petition stated that a Governor works as Chancellor of Universities. The petition stated that the present Governor's term expired on July 7, 2026. Thus, the respondents should appoint a person as Governor. The petition also stated that there was an earlier practice of appointing the Chief Justice as Governor.

Thus, the petition stated that till the respondents' direct appointment of the Governor, the Chief Justice of the High Court be made acting Governor.

The petition stated that non-appointment of the Governor results in defeating the Constitutional provisions. It was further stated that the respondents are duty-bound to explain to the High Court why no steps were taken to appoint the Governor despite knowing that the term of the present Governor has come to an end.

The counsel for the respondents opposed the submission and claimed that the present Governor shall hold office until his successor is appointed.

Referring to Article 156 of the Constitution, the court held that the provision itself mandates that the Governor shall hold office until his successor enters upon his office.

Further, the court referred to the case of Krishna Ballabh Sahay v. Commission of Inquiry [AIR 1969 SC 258] and reiterated that there is a proviso to Article 156 of the Constitution which states that there shall never be a constitutional vacuum.

Thus, the bench dismissed the petition.

Case Title: MA Khan v. Secretary to the President of India

Case Number: WRIT PETITION No. 32977 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 369

For Petitioner: Advocates Ajay Shankar Raizada and Abhimanyu Singh

For Union: Additional Solicitor General Suneel Jain with Deputy Solicitor General S.M. Guru and Advocate Kurian J. Verghese

For State: Deputy Advocate General Abhijeet Awasthi

Click here to read/download the Order