Samsher Singh v State of Punjab
Rule established
The President and the Governor are constitutional or formal heads of the executive. They exercise their powers and functions on the aid and advice of their Council of Ministers, save in a few well known exceptional situations, and the satisfaction required by the Constitution is that of the Council of Ministers and not their personal satisfaction.
Facts
- The appellant held a subordinate judicial post and was on probation.
- His services were terminated by an order expressed to be made in the name of the Governor of Punjab.
- The order was authenticated by a Secretary to the Government under the rules of business framed under Art.166, and was not signed by the Governor personally.
- The appellant contended that the Governor was required to apply his own mind to the matter and that an order made without his personal satisfaction was invalid.
- It was argued in support that various provisions of the Constitution speak of the satisfaction of the Governor, which must mean his individual judgment.
Issue
- Whether the President and the Governor are required to exercise their constitutional functions personally, or whether they act on the aid and advice of their Council of Ministers so that the satisfaction required is that of the Ministers.
Held
- The order was valid. The Court held that under the Cabinet system of government embodied in the Constitution, the President and the Governor are constitutional or formal heads and exercise their powers on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in a few well known exceptional situations. The satisfaction spoken of in the Constitution is the satisfaction of the Council of Ministers, and the rules of business made under Art.77 for the Union and Art.166 for the States permit the allocation of business among Ministers and officers and the authentication of orders in the name of the head of State. An order so authenticated is valid without the personal application of mind by the President or the Governor. Krishna Iyer J, concurring, elaborated on the narrow field of genuine discretion.
Ratio Decidendi
The Constitution establishes responsible government, in which executive power is exercised by Ministers answerable to the legislature. Reading every reference to the head of State's satisfaction as requiring his personal judgment would transfer the substance of executive power from an accountable Ministry to an unaccountable functionary, which is the opposite of the scheme. The rules of business exist precisely because the vast volume of executive action cannot pass through one person, and their validity confirms that the head of State's name is a formal vehicle for the Government's decision.
How to use it in an exam
- The leading authority on the position of the President and the Governor. Cite it whenever a provision speaks of their satisfaction, and whenever an order is challenged for want of personal application of mind.
- Note the important qualification in the phrase "save in a few well known exceptional situations", which is the doorway to the recognised areas of discretion: appointing a Prime Minister or Chief Minister in a hung House, dismissing a Ministry that has lost confidence and will not resign, and dissolution advised by a defeated Ministry.
- For the Governor, read it with Art.163, which unlike Art.74 expressly saves a field of discretion, and with Nabam Rebia v Deputy Speaker 2016, which confined that discretion to what the Constitution expressly provides or necessarily implies.
- For the President, read it with UNR Rao v Indira Gandhi 1971, which held Art.74(1) mandatory so that a Council of Ministers must always exist, and with the proviso to Art.74(1) added by the 44th Amendment permitting one reconsideration.
- Use it also to explain Art.74(2) and Art.163(3), under which a court may not inquire into what advice was tendered, since the advice is the real decision.
Source
Source: (1974) 2 SCC 831; AIR 1974 SC 2192; Bench of seven Judges; the leading authority on the position of the President and Governor in the parliamentary scheme; citation and bench checked against Indian Kanoon and reported sources, audit of 12 August 2026
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.