JUDGMENT By the Court.—In these proceedings, the jurisdiction of the Court has been invoked in public interest under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking (i) a mandamus to the Union Government to dismiss the Governor of the State of Uttar Pradesh; and (ii) a mandamus inviting the attention of the Union Government to a statement attributed to the Governor for taking action either for dismissal or transfer. 2. The basis of the petition is a statement attributed to the Governor in the print media on 11 December 2014 at Faizabad supporting “early construction of Ram Temple” (as described in the petition). According to the petitioner, the statement which is attributed to the Governor raises a question of constitutional impropriety which would justify the invocation of the writ jurisdiction and the intervention of the Court for the grant of reliefs as claimed in these proceedings. The reliefs which the petitioner claims are extracted herein below: “(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus asking the Union of India to dismiss Sri Ram Naik from the post of Governor of U.P. (ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus inviting the attention of the Union of India to the highly controversial statement made by the Governor and political controversy which the statement has triggered and to take a suitable action against Sri Ram Naik either to dismiss him or to transfer him from State of U.P. to some other state as a Governor. (iii) Pass such other and further order, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Article 153 of the Constitution provides that there shall be a Governor for each State. Article 154(1) vests the executive power of the State in the Governor and mandates that the power shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with the Constitution. The Governor of a State is appointed under Article 155 by the President. Under Article 156(1), the Governor holds office “during the pleasure of the President”. 4. The Governor of a State is appointed under Article 155 by the President. Under Article 156(1), the Governor holds office “during the pleasure of the President”. 4. The submission which has been urged before the Court is that the immunity which is conferred on the Governor by Article 361 of the Constitution does not deprive the Court, in the exercise of its power of judicial review, to examine the validity of the action of a Governor, including on the ground of ultra vires or of mala fides. Based on the observations which were made in a decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Rameshwar Prasad and others v. Union of India and another, AIR 2006 SC 980 , it was submitted that it would be open to the Court to inquire into whether the action of the Governor, which is alleged, is ultra vires and, if so, to issue a mandamus to the Union Government for the dismissal or transfer of the Governor. It is submitted that, in any event, the Court would not be bereft of power to draw the attention of the Union Government to the statement which is attributed to the Governor to mould the reliefs suitably, having due regard to the omnibus relief which is claimed in prayer clause (iii). 5. A Governor under Article 156 holds office during the pleasure of the President. Whether a particular person should be appointed as Governor is a matter which falls within the exclusive domain of the President acting upon the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Similarly, the Court cannot in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 issue a mandamus that the pleasure of the President for the continuance in office of an incumbent should be withdrawn or that the Governor should be transferred or appointed elsewhere. The decision in Rameshwar Prasad (supra) dealt with the issue as to whether it was permissible to dissolve a Legislative Assembly under Article 174(2)(b) of the Constitution without its first meeting taking place; whether a proclamation dissolving the Assembly of the State of Bihar was illegal and unconstitutional; and, if so, whether the status quo ante should be restored. In that context, one of the issues which came up for consideration was the scope of the immunity granted to the Governor under Article 361 of the Constitution. In that context, one of the issues which came up for consideration was the scope of the immunity granted to the Governor under Article 361 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, while dealing with the provisions of Article 361, held that though the Governor enjoys a complete immunity and is not answerable to any Court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purported to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties, that immunity under Article 361(1) does not take away the powers of the Court to examine the validity of the action of the Governor including on the ground of mala fides. In the present case, the validity of the action of the Governor is not in issue but the issue is whether it would be open to the Court, in the exercise of its power of judicial review, to issue a mandamus to the Union Government to dismiss or transfer a Governor. Consistent with the provisions of Article 156(1), we are of the view that it would not be open for the Court to issue a mandamus either for the dismissal of a Governor or for the transfer of a Governor. We are not called upon, in these proceedings, to determine the extent of judicial review in respect of a decision of the Union Government to dismiss a Governor which is an issue on which we express no opinion. However, once the doctrine of pleasure as embodied in Article 156(1) is understood in its perspective, it is clear that the power of judicial review cannot extend to the issuance of a mandamus for the dismissal or, as the case may be, the transfer of a Governor. 6. The alternate submission that this Court should issue a mandamus drawing the attention of the Union Government to a statement attributed to the Governor of the State of Uttar Pradesh, is equally misconceived. We have prefaced the reference to the statement as one which is attributed to the Governor. A news report in the media or a section of the media cannot be regarded as an authentic record or proof of what was actually said. Besides, there is no reason for the Court to hypothesise or presuppose that any constitutional authority would be unaware of a news report. A news report in the media or a section of the media cannot be regarded as an authentic record or proof of what was actually said. Besides, there is no reason for the Court to hypothesise or presuppose that any constitutional authority would be unaware of a news report. The alternate submission also proceeds on the basis that the Court has the power, in the first place, to direct the withdrawal of the pleasure or the exercise of the pleasure of the President in a particular way to post an incumbent Governor at a particular place. The Court has neither of those powers under Article 226 nor will it assume to itself such a jurisdiction. 7. For these reasons, we see no reason to entertain the petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ——————