MP High Court: Governor Can Continue Beyond Five-Year Term Until Successor Takes Charge

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking a direction to the Union government to appoint a new Governor for the state, holding that a Governor continues to lawfully hold office beyond the expiry of the five-year term prescribed under the Constitution, until a successor formally enters upon office.

A Division Bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice B.P. Sharma was hearing a writ petition filed by Dr. M.A. Khan, who described himself as a retired Professor of Jawahar Lal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur. The petition, filed as pro bono publico, sought a direction to the Secretary to the President of India and other respondents to appoint the Governor of Madhya Pradesh, on the ground that the present incumbent had "adorned the Gubernatorial post" for more than five years and that his term had expired on July 7, 2026.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocates Ajay Shankar Raizada and Abhimanyu Singh argued that the Governor is an important constitutional functionary, serving as Kuladhipati of the university and as the appellate authority for orders passed by the state government. Since his term had lapsed, they submitted, he ought to be removed, and the Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court be made Governor in his place.

The submissions were opposed by Additional Solicitor General Suneel Jain, appearing with Deputy Solicitor General S.M. Guru and assisted by advocate Kurian J. Verghese for the Union of India, while Deputy Advocate General Abhijeet Awasthi appeared for the state. They contended that under the Constitution, a Governor continues to hold office until a successor enters upon the post, making the petition both premature and unsustainable.

Before examining the merits, the bench flagged a procedural lapse, observing that the petitioner had "not disclosed his bona fides as a public spirited citizen," a disclosure mandated under Chapter 10 Rule 27 and Chapter 13A Rule 13 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008 for regular public interest litigation. Despite this, the court proceeded to examine the substance of the plea and found it "misconceived."

Turning to Article 156 of the Constitution, the bench noted that while sub-clause (3) fixes a Governor's term at five years, the accompanying proviso mandates that "a Governor shall, notwithstanding the expiration of his term, continue to hold office until his successor enters upon his office." The court held that this language "excludes all questions" regarding the legality of a Governor continuing in office once the fixed term has lapsed.

To support this reading, the bench relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Krishna Ballabh Sahay and Others vs. Commission of Inquiry and Others, where a similar challenge to a Governor's continuance beyond the five-year term had been rejected. The bench extracted the Supreme Court's reasoning that the proviso exists precisely to prevent a constitutional vacuum, since a State can never be left without a Governor under Article 153, and that any interregnum is avoided by permitting the outgoing Governor to remain in office until a successor is sworn in.

"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," the bench observed, adding that a vacuum over the gubernatorial post "is not contemplated under [the] Constitution."

Concluding that the constitutional scheme itself answers the question raised by the petitioner, the bench held, "When the Proviso of Article 156(3) of the Constitution of India, itself explains the term of office in a particular manner, then arguments raised by petitioner pale into oblivion and deserve to be rejected."

The petition was accordingly dismissed as misconceived, with the court clarifying that a sitting Governor continuing beyond the nominal five-year mark is not, by itself, a constitutional irregularity calling for judicial intervention, but a safeguard built into the Constitution to prevent the office from ever falling vacant.

Case Title: Dr. M.A. Khan vs. Secretary to the President of India and Others

Date of Order: September 15, 2026

Bench: Justice Anand Pathak and Justice B.P. Sharma