Governors must act fairly to protect federal democracy

Source: The post Governors must act fairly to protect federal democracy has been created, based on the article “Supreme Court’s judgment on Tamil Nadu governor: Why governors are so partial to the Centre” published in “Indian Express” on 10 April 2025. Governors must act fairly to protect federal democracy.

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper2- Polity-Appointment to various Constitutional posts, powers, functions and responsibilities of various Constitutional Bodies.

Context: The article discusses the declining role and rising controversy surrounding governors in India. It highlights the Supreme Court’s recent judgment (April 8) that curbs arbitrary actions by governors and strengthens federal democracy. It also reviews historical perspectives and suggests reforms to ensure governors function as impartial constitutional heads, not political agents.

For detailed information on Office of Governor- Issues and Suggested Reforms read this article here

Original idea behind the role of Governor

1. Governors were intended to be sagacious counselors who consult, warn, and encourage, while staying above party politics.
2. Historical leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru and B.R. Ambedkar supported appointing eminent, non-political, and academically inclined individuals to ensure neutrality in office.
3. B.N. Rau, Sardar Patel, and Jayaprakash Narayan proposed that governors be elected by the legislature or chosen from a panel by MPs and MLAs of the state to ensure independence.
4. However, these proposals were not adopted.
5. Dr. Ambedkar concluded that governors should act as figureheads, representing the people of the state and not the central government. He also expected that the central government would consult state chief ministers while appointing governors, ensuring political neutrality.

Change in governor’s role in recent times

1. There is a rise in political interference by governors, especially those appointed by the current central government.
2. They have become more assertive and interventionist, often stepping beyond their constitutional role.
3. Legislative disruptions have become common, with governors delaying or denying assent to state bills, interfering in appointments, and altering customary speeches.
4. This contrasts sharply with the limited, advisory role originally envisioned.
5. A major intervention came through the Supreme Court’s judgment on April 8, 2024, which strongly criticized the misuse of gubernatorial powers and sought to establish accountability through strict timelines.
6. Example: The Tamil Nadu governor withheld assent to 10 bills for several months, and later referred them to the President. The Court ruled this arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Supreme Court’s April 8, 2024, ruling

Context: The ruling addressed the misuse of power by governors in not assenting to bills passed by state legislatures.

Main Points:

1. Article 142 Application: The Court used its special powers to set strict timelines for governors to act on bills.
2. Limits on Discretion: It clarified that governors under Article 200 do not have absolute discretion in assenting to bills.
3. Mandatory Timelines: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan mandated deadlines for bill assent, reconsideration, or presidential referral.
4. Constitutional Protection: This move aimed to strengthen federal democracy by curbing undue central interference through governor actions.

Problems with the current system of appointing governors

1. Political appointees dominate, often chosen from among retired politicians or central ruling party loyalists.
2. Governors act on central directives, reducing their independence and undermining state autonomy.
3. They lack job security, unlike other constitutional authorities like judges, making them vulnerable to political pressure.
4. The Sarkaria Commission (1983) recommended that the Chief Minister, Vice-President, and Speaker of Lok Sabha be consulted in governor appointments.
5. None of these suggestions were ever followed by any ruling party.

Example: The Tamil Nadu case shows how centralized appointments can disrupt state governance and lead to legal challenges.

Nature of a governor’s discretion should be

1. Used with reason and caution, based on facts.
2. Must be independent and free from dictation, especially from the Centre.
3. Should follow proper application of mind, after reviewing all facts.
4. Must serve a legitimate purpose, not driven by bias or bad faith.
5. Decisions should not be arbitrary or whimsical.

Question for practice:

Discuss the changing role of Governors in India and the challenges it poses to federal democracy.