Role of Governor

Recently, the SC passed a judgment regarding the reservation of Bills by the Governor – laying down a specific timeframe within which the Governor & the President have to act. The issue becomes important particularly in the wake of the ongoing tussle between the Governor of the State of TN & the State Government. 

What is the role & powers of Governor in Indian polity?

1. Constitutional & Ceremonial Role = The Governor is the constitutional head of the State executives. The executive power of the State is vested in the Governor (Article 154), and all executive actions of the State government are formally taken in their name (Article 166). The Governor acts as a bridge between the Centre and the State. He/she enjoys various executive, legislative, financial and discretionary powers. 

2. Constitutional Provisions:

• Article 153: Provides for a Governor for one or more than one states.
• Article 154: The executive powers of the state are vested in the Governor and can be exercised directly or through subordinate officers in accordance with the Constitution.
• Article 155: Provides for the appointment of the Governor by the President by warrant under his hand and seal.
• Article 156: Provides the term of office of Governor- Appointed for a period of five years and holds office during the pleasure of the President. Pleasure of the President means that he can be removed anytime by the President, even before the expiry of five years.
• Article 157: Qualifications- He should be a citizen of India and must have completed the age of thirty-five years

3. Discretionary Powers = Governor has two types of discretion in the execution of his work:

• Constitutional discretion which is discretion mentioned directly in the Constitution. This is exercised in matters such as reserving a bill for the consideration of the President, recommendation of the President’s rule under Article 356.
• Situational discretion which means hidden discretion that is derived from the exigencies of political situations. For instance, the appointment of Chief Minister of a state when no party has a clear cut majority in the state legislative assembly or when the chief minister in office dies suddenly and there is no obvious successor, dissolution of the state legislative assembly if the council of ministers has lost its majority etc.

What are the issues associated with the Office of Governor?

1. Appointment of the Governor = There is a lack of specific provisions related to the appointment of a Governor in the Constitution. For instance, apart from the provision that he should be a citizen of India having completed the age of 35 years, there is no other provision regarding his appointment. This is taken advantage of by the central government to appoint loyalists and retired politicians. For example, former Delhi CM Sheila Dikshit was immediately made the Governor of Kerala after her defeat in the legislative assembly elections of 2014 as a reward for her contribution to her political party. 

2. Acting as an agent of Centre = There is an abuse of the position of Governor usually at the behest of the ruling party at the Centre. The post has been reduced to being a retirement package for politicians faithful to the centre. As a result, the Governor sends motivated, distorted and partial reports to the Central government with the intention to hamper the functioning of the State government and ultimately get rid of them. For example, the Governor of Rajasthan appealed to people to re-elect the incumbent Prime Minister in the General Elections of 2019, which is against the spirit of non-partisanship that is expected from the person sitting on constitutional posts. Many Governors appointed have had strong political affiliations to the ruling party at the Centre, raising concerns about their neutrality, especially when dealing with State governments led by opposition parties. 

3. “Retirement Package”= The post has sometimes been viewed as a reward or a retirement package for loyal politicians or bureaucrats, rather than being based solely on merit and suitability for the constitutional role.

4. Misuse of Article 356 = In a number of situations of political instability in the State, the Governors recommend President’s rule under Article 356 without exhausting all possible options. This power is exercised to dismiss the State government controlled by a political party opposed to the ruling party at the centre. The Sarkaria Commission (1998) notes that since Independence, Article 356 has been misused a 100 times.

5. Misuse of discretionary powers:

• Formation of Government in Hung Assemblies: The Governor’s discretion in inviting the leader of a party or coalition to form the government after an inconclusive election has been a source of controversy. Allegations of bias have arisen when Governors have seemingly favored a particular party, even if it didn’t have the clearest majority initially.   
• Withholding Assent to Bills: Governors have been accused of deliberately delaying or withholding assent to Bills passed by the State legislatures, sometimes without valid constitutional reasons, thereby obstructing the legislative process and creating friction with the elected State government.   
• Interference in State administration: In some instances, Governors have been accused of overstepping their constitutional boundaries by interfering in the day-to-day administration of the State, such as involving themselves in transfers of officials or university affairs without the advice of the Council of Ministers.
• Reservation of Bills = The ongoing impasse between the Governors & opposition ruled State governments primarily hinges on the interpretation of the first proviso to Art 200 that stipulates that if the Governor decides to withhold assent, the Bill must be returned to the Assembly “as soon as possible”, accompanied by a request to reconsider the proposed legislation or suggest amendments. While it mandates prompt action, it stops short of prescribing a definitive timeline. This ‘constitutional silence’ has often been exploited by the Governors to indefinitely delay action on a Bill without formally returning it – a tactic colloquially known as the ‘Pocket Veto’. Similarly, in the case of NCT of Delhi, the provisions of Article 239AA (4), mandates that in case of a difference of opinion between the L-G and the Council of Ministers, the former has to refer the issue to the President. In the meantime, while that decision is pending before the President, the L-G, if the matter is urgent, can use his discretion to take immediate action. The Lt. Governor of Delhi misused this provision to take administrative decisions and deprive the State assemblies of their legislative rights.

6. Arbitrarily removal of Governor = The Governors do not enjoy security of tenure. The Governors of various states are arbitrarily removed whenever there is a change of government at the centre because unlike the President there is no provision for the impeachment of the Governor. For instance, in 1989, the V.P Singh government asked all the Governors appointed by the previous government to resign.

What are various SC’s Judgments?

1. State of TN v/s Governor of TN case (2025):

• SC declared TN Governor’s prolonged refusal to give assent to 10 Bills as illegal & erroneous in law. Invoking its powers under Article 142 of the constitution, the court deemed the 10 pending bills to have received the assent. 
• SC has imposed a timeline on the Governor to prevent  any obstruction to the State’s legislative process. 
  • If the governor, acting on the Cabinet’s advice, opts to withhold assent or reserve a bill for president’s consideration – then such action shall be taken in less than 1 month period of time. 
  • If the governor withholds the assent contrary to the advice of the minister, the bill must be returned within 3 months, accompanied by the message detailing the rationale for the decision. 
  • If the governor reserves the bill for the President against the Cabinet’s recommendation, this must be done within 3 months. 
  • If the bill is re-passed by the State legislature after reconsideration, the Governor is required to grant assent within 1 month. 
• SC has also set a 3 months deadline for the President to decide on the Bills referred to her by the Governor. 
• SC has also recommended that the President shall seek the advice of the SC on such a Bill, in line with the procedure outlined in Article 143 of the constitution, as a measure of prudence. 
• Further limiting the discretionary powers of the Governor, the court ruled that a Bill cannot be reserved for the President’s consideration once it has been returned to the State legislature, reconsidered & resubmitted for assent. 
• The reservation of Bill cannot be based on “personal dissatisfaction” or “political expediency” & is only permissible in instances where there is a grave threat to democratic principles. 
• SC emphasised that any exercise of gubernatorial discretion (i.e. governor’s discretion) can be judicially reviewed to prevent any disregard for the will of the people, as expressed through their elected representatives. 
• The court identified only 3 circumstances in which the governor could act without the aid & advice of the ministers – 1) When a Bill undermines the powers of the HC, 2) When a Bill requires presidential assent is explicitly mandated for e.g. under Art 31C where a law was sought to be protected from judicial review, and 3) When a Bill fundamentally undermines the constitutional values. 
• Reservation of bills in 2nd instance: The governor cannot reserve the bill passed by the State legislature after its re-passage by the Legislature for the President’s consideration – except – when the Bill is different from the 1st instance.

2. Samsher Singh vs State of Punjab (1974) = The exercise of discretion by the Governor should be in concurrence and harmony with the Council of Ministers. He should not take decisions against the wishes of the Council of Ministers.

3. SR Bommai v/s Union of India (1994) = It is one of the historic cases that dealt with the issue of arbitrary dismissal of State governments under Article 356. The Karnataka Governor in 1989, refused to allow the democratically elected Chief Minister to prove his majority on the floor of the Assembly and this led to the imposition of President’s rule under Article 356. The verdict ruled that the floor of the Assembly is the only forum that should test the majority of the government of the day, and not the subjective opinion of the Governor. It also stated that the Governor’s report regarding the proclamation of President’s Rule in a State in the wake of breakdown of Constitutional machinery is subject to judicial review.

4. Rameshwar Prasad case (2006) = Article 361 grants personal immunity to the governors, but does not insulate them from legal immunity. Also, the discretion of the Governor can be judicially reviewed by the Supreme Court.

5. BP Singhal case (2010) = The Supreme Court ruled that even though the President could dismiss a Governor without having to provide reasons for doing so, this power could not be exercised in an “arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner”. A change in central government cannot be a ground for removal of Governors, or to appoint more favourable persons to this post.

6. Nabam Rebia case (2016) = The Supreme Court  ruled that Article 163 does not give Governors a general discretionary power and he is  bound by the aid and advice of the elected Council of Ministers. He cannot take steps relating to disqualification of the Speaker. He is barred from unilaterally sending messages to the Assembly on any matter. The Governor has no power to summon an Assembly session unless the Government has lost its majority.

7. NCT Delhi v/s Union of India case (2018) = Supreme Court declared that the Lt. Governor has to work on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and the power to refer any matter to the President does not mean every matter.

What are the recommendations by various Committees & Commissions?

1. First Administrative Reforms Commission (1966):

• Appointment: Governor should have long experience in public life and administration and be politically neutral. Retired Judges should not be appointed as Governors and the Chief Minister may be consulted before his appointment.
• Discretion: Guidelines must be formulated regarding the exercise of discretionary powers by the Governors duly approved by the Inter-State Council and the Central government. The Governor should act on his own judgement and discretion in matters relating to submission as well as on reservation of bills for the consideration of the President.

2. Rajamannar Committee:

• Governor not as an agent of the Centre: The Rajmannar Committee emphasized that the Governor should act as the constitutional head of the state and not as an agent of the central government. This highlights the need for the Governor to maintain the autonomy of the state within the federal structure.

• Deletion of Articles 356 and 357: The committee recommended the deletion of Articles 356 and 357, which deal with the imposition of President’s Rule in a state. This recommendation was aimed at preventing the misuse of these articles by the central government to undermine state autonomy.

3. Sarkaria Commission:

• Appointment: Governor should be an eminent person, not belonging to the same state. A person belonging to a minority group should be given preference. It recommended that a politician from the ruling party at the Union level should not be appointed as a Governor of a state run by some other political party. It recommended the amendment of Article 155 prescribing the procedure of consultation with the State Chief Minister in the selection of a person as Governor.
• Removal: Governors must not be removed before completion of their five year tenure, except in rare and compelling circumstances. It provided for an order of preference to be followed by the Governor to deal specifically with the situation where no single party obtained a majority.

4. National Commission to review the working of the Constitution (2002) (Venkatachaliah Commission):

• Appointment: It reiterated Sarkaria Commission recommendations regarding the qualifications of a person to be appointed as the  Governor. 
• Removal: If the Governor is to be removed before completion of term, the central government should do so only after consultation with the Chief Minister.
• It recommended setting up a time limit of six months for the Governor to give his assent to a bill or reserve it for the consideration of the President.
• The Governor should not be allowed to dismiss the State government  as long as it enjoys the support and confidence  of the Legislative assembly.

5. 2nd ARC:

• Appointment of non-partisan persons: The 2nd ARC recommended that individuals appointed as Governors should be non-partisan and have extensive experience in public life and administration. This recommendation seeks to ensure that the Governor’s actions are guided by the principles of impartiality and public service rather than political considerations.

• Guidelines for discretionary powers: The 2nd ARC suggested that the Inter-State Council should establish clear guidelines for Governors to follow when exercising their discretionary powers. This is intended to bring more clarity and structure to the Governor’s role in situations where they are not bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers, reducing the potential for arbitrary or politically motivated decisions.

6. Punchii Commission:

• Appointment: As a qualification for the Governor, it suggests that the person should not have participated in active politics at even local level for a couple of years before his appointment.
• Removal: Governor should be removed only by the resolution of the State legislature. It recommended the deletion of the doctrine of pleasure of the President from the Constitution. It also opined that there should be provisions for the impeachment of the Governor by the State legislature along the same lines as that of the President.
• It also suggests that the Governors should have the right to sanction the prosecution of a Minister against the advice of the Council of Ministers.

What is the way forward?

1. Governors must act judiciously, impartially and efficiently to reflect the spirit of non-partisanship.

2. A report by the Committee of Governors titled, ‘Rajyapal —Vikas Ke Rajdoot: Catalytic Role of Governors as Agents for Change in Society’, can be taken into consideration for improving the functioning of the office of Governor. It talks about the role of Governors in the development process and highlights the need for an action oriented framework to improve the functioning of the Office of the Governor. The report emphasises identifying priority areas along with activities that can help realise the objectives of Sarv Shresth Bharat (paramount India). It also suggests that Governors can play a mentoring role in overall implementation of developmental schemes in their States.

3. Sardar Hukum Singh in the Constitutional Assembly Debates on 30 May 1949,  had argued in favour of providing a panel of names, elected by the State Legislature, for the President to choose from. In his speech on the constitutional role of Governors, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar described how a Governor should use his discretion not as “representative of a party” but as “the representative of the people as a whole of the State”.

4. Implementation of reforms suggested by various committees & commission as well as SC judgments, such as:

• Consultation with the Chief Minister: Making it mandatory to consult the Chief Minister before appointing a Governor.
• Fixed Tenure: Providing a fixed tenure for Governors to ensure their independence.
• Grounds for Removal: Clearly defining the grounds and procedures for the removal of Governors.
• Limiting Discretionary Powers: Clearly defining and limiting the discretionary powers of the Governor through constitutional amendments or a code of conduct.
• Non-Partisan Appointments: Appointing individuals with eminence in public life who are not actively involved in politics.
• Impeachment Process: Considering a process for the impeachment of Governors by the State legislature.

Conclusion:

The SC ruling in TN case not only provides the opposition-ruled state government a clear constitutional remedy against the inordinate delays by the Governors in granting assent to the Bills passed by the Legislature but also upholds the principles of federalism. By recognising automatic assent in cases where the Governor fails to adhere to the prescribed timelines, the court has instituted a crucial safeguard against the abuse of the office. However, it is time that the Office of Governor also realise that they must rise above partisan politics while discharging constitutional obligation & act as a ‘friend, guide & philosopher’ to the State & not as a hindrance.