In the scheme of Indian federalism, the office of the Governor has emerged as one of the most debated constitutional offices. Designed as a bridge of unity between the Union and the States, it has frequently turned into a battleground of political friction. Understanding the constitutional provisions, historical debates, and commission recommendations regarding this office is critical for civil services aspirants.
1. Constitutional Status & Dual Role of the Governor
The office of the Governor is established under Article 153 of the Indian Constitution, which mandates a Governor for each state. The Constitution conceives a dual role for the Governor:
- Constitutional Head of the State: The Governor is the ceremonial head of the state executive (Article 154), acting on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister (Article 163), except in matters where they are required to exercise discretion.
- Representative of the Union: The Governor is appointed by the President (Article 155) and holds office during the pleasure of the President (Article 156), acting as a vital link maintaining the integrity and federal structure of the nation.
2. Core Areas of Conflict & Friction
The friction between Governors and State Governments typically revolves around the discretionary powers of the Governor, which are broader than those of the President. The main flashpoints are:
- Assent to Bills (Article 200): Under Article 200, when a Bill passed by the State Legislature is presented to the Governor, they can either give assent, withhold assent, return the bill for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President’s consideration. State governments argue that Governors abuse this power by delaying bills indefinitely (creating a pocket veto) or reserving non-constitutional bills for the President to stall state legislation.
- Discretion in Government Formation (Article 164): In the event of a hung assembly, the Governor has significant discretionary power to invite the leader of a coalition or party to form the government. Critics allege that Governors often act in a partisan manner, favoring the ruling party at the Center.
- Recommendation of President’s Rule (Article 356): The Governor’s report to the President regarding the breakdown of constitutional machinery in the state has historically been a tool for the arbitrary dismissal of state governments.
- Role as University Chancellor: In many states, the Governor acts as the ex-officio Chancellor of state universities. Recent conflicts have erupted over the appointment of Vice-Chancellors, with state governments accusing Governors of bypassing the elected executive.
3. Landmark Judicial Interventions
The Supreme Court of India has, through several landmark judgments, restricted the arbitrary exercise of the Governor’s discretionary powers:
| Judgement | Key Ruling / Constitutional Principle |
|---|---|
| S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) | Ruled that the floor of the Assembly is the only place to test the majority of a government, and Governor’s recommendation under Article 356 is subject to judicial review. |
| Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016) | Held that the Governor cannot act on their own discretion under Article 163 without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers except where explicitly allowed by the Constitution. |
| B.P. Singhal v. Union of India (2010) | Ruled that the Governor cannot be removed arbitrarily before their 5-year tenure simply because of a change of power at the Center. Reasons must be justified and non-partisan. |
4. Recommendations of Key Commissions
- Sarkaria Commission (1988): Recommends that the Governor should be an eminent person from outside the state, detached from local politics, and not an active politician from the ruling party. The Chief Minister of the state must be consulted before the appointment.
- Punchhi Commission (2010): Proposed that the Governor should be given a fixed 5-year tenure, and the phrase ‘during the pleasure of the President’ should be removed. It also recommended that the state legislature should have the power to impeach the Governor on lines similar to the President. It urged that the Governor should decide on bill assent within 6 months.
5. Mains Model Question (15 Marks, 250 Words)
Q. “The Governor’s constitutional discretion is not an absolute power but must be exercised in accordance with constitutional morality.” Discuss in the light of recent friction between Governors and elected executives in various Indian states.
Model Answer Framework:
- Introduction: Mention the dual mandate of the Governor (Article 153) and introduce the concept of Constitutional Morality as emphasized by the Supreme Court.
- Body:
- Explain Article 163 (discretionary limits) and highlight how the Supreme Court in the Nabam Rebia case (2016) ruled that discretion cannot be arbitrary or fancy.
- Analyze friction areas: Bill delaying (Article 200) and university administration conflicts. Quote the recent SC directive stating that Governors cannot sit on bills passed by the assembly indefinitely.
- Suggest reforms: Sarkaria Commission (consulting CMs) and Punchhi Commission (fixed timelines for assent, fixed tenure).
- Conclusion: Summarize that the Governor is the federal anchor of the state. The office must act as a ‘sagacious counselor’ rather than an active political player to uphold cooperative federalism.