This portal ( ) is now deprecated and not updated any longer.

Print Friendly

Learn and Practice: Daily Editorial- Politicisation of Appointments of Governors

Politicization of Appointments of Governors Context

Click here to Download Daily Editorial PDF (17th Feb. 2017)

The controversy over the politicization of the Governor post is once again in the news over delayed decision making by the Governor of TN in the appointment of CM.

Let us examine detail the debates related to the gubernatorial posts.

How are Governors appointed?

Under the Articles 155 and 156, Governors in India are appointed directly by the President and holds office “during the pleasure of the President”.

The President in turn, according to the Constitution, acts on the advice of the council of ministers headed by the prime minister under the Article 74 of the Constitution. In effect, therefore, governors are appointed by the central government.

Role of the Governor

In a federal system, state governors, as the president`s representatives, play a unique role.

  • India invented the role of state governor after Independence to act as a conduit between the ceremonial head of state (the president) and the chief minister of each state, as the president’s eyes and ears in the country’s diverse and far-flung states.
  • Their duty is to be neutral guardians of the complex relationship between the federal government and state governments belonging to different political parties.

But this role got diluted after few decades into governance. Today governors are the handmaidens of the Union government, as Supreme Court said in one of the judgements ‘agents of the centre’.

Criticism of regarding the Governor Posts

  • The governor selections have come to be made on grounds of political partisanship, favouritism, patronage and cronyism.
  • The governors are becoming the eyes and ears for Central Government instead of the President.
  • The misuse of the office of the Governor for political purposes to dispose the rival political parties’ government by invoking the Article 356 on dubious or doubtful grounds.
  • Appointment of Judges as governors.
  • Appointment of people involved in the active politics of the State.
  • Removal of Governor merely because he is not on the same political or ideological page as that of the government, this happens despite constitutional bench saying
    • a Governor cannot be removed on the ground that he is out of sync with the policies and ideologies of the Union Government or the party in power at the Centre.
    • Nor can he be removed on the ground that the Union Government has lost confidence in him.

Recommendations made regarding the Governor Posts

Sarkaria Commission Report Recommendations

  • “The Governors tenure of office of five years in a State should not be disturbed except very rarely and that too for some extremely compelling reason. It is very necessary to assure a measure of security of tenure to the Governor’s office.”
  • Governor should be an eminent person and not belong to the state where he is to be posted.
  • State chief minister should have a say in the appointment of governor
  • Governor should be a detached figure without intense political links or should not have taken part in politics in recent past.
  • Governor should not be a member of the ruling party.
  • Governor should be removed before his tenure only on the grounds as if aspersions are cast on his morality, dignity, constitutional propriety, etc.

The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution headed by Chief Justice Venkatachaliahrecommendations:

  • that a governor’s appointment should be entrusted to a committee comprising the prime minister, the home minister, the speaker of the Lok Sabha and the chief minister of the concerned state.
  • If they have to be removed before completion of their term, the central government should do so only after consultation with the Chief Minister.

The Punchhi commission recommendations

  • The person who is slated to be a Governor should not have participated in active politics at even local level for at least a couple of years before his appointment.
  • For office of Governor, the doctrine of pleasure should end and should be deleted from the constitution. Governor should not be removed at whim of central government. Instead, a resolution by state legislature should be there to remove Governor.
  • There should be provisions for impeachment of the Governor by the state legislature along the same lines as that of President by President.
  • The convention of making the Governors as chancellors of universities should be done away with.
  • The commission recommended for “localising emergency provisions” under Articles 355 and 356, contending that localised areas — either a district or parts of a district — be brought under Governor’s rule instead of the whole state.

The Supreme Court’s interpretation

In 2010, a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court interpreted these provisions and laid down some binding principles (B.P. Singhal v. Union of India), the Supreme Court held:

  1. President, in effect the central government, has the power to remove a Governor at any time without giving him or her any reason, and without granting an opportunity to be heard.
  2. However, this power cannot be exercised in an arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner.  The power of removing Governors should only be exercised in rare and exceptional circumstances for valid and compelling reasons.
  3. The mere reason that a Governor is at variance with the policies and ideologies of the central government, or that the central government has lost confidence in him or her, is not sufficient to remove a Governor.  Thus, a change in central government cannot be a ground for removal of Governors, or to appoint more favourable persons to this post.
  4. A decision to remove a Governor can be challenged in a court of law.  In such cases, first the petitioner will have to make a prima facie case of arbitrariness or bad faith on part of the central government.  If a prima facie case is established, the court can require the central government to produce the materials on the basis of which the decision was made in order to verify the presence of compelling reasons.


Despite several commissions appointed by Government themselves and the Supreme Court guidelines, the post of governor is misused again and again.

It is, however, time for a thorough review of the Governor’s powers and the process of appointment and removal.

  • New rules and conventions may need to be put in place so that the ability of the Central Government to misuse this office is curtailed, while the Governor’s ability to fulfil his or her constitutional mandate is strengthened.
  • The ruling party should convene an all-party meeting and consult other stakeholders such as jurists to review the role of the Governors, the powers exercised by him and the manner in which he should be appointed and removed.
  • The Constitution should be amended and security of tenure must be provided to the Governors. The judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in B. P. Singhal case is the law of the land and the Government should respect it.
  • The Governors should be treated with dignity, and should not be fired only for political considerations.

The Constitution of the land prohibits the arbitrary exercise of power and the Government is not an exception to the equality law.

Test your self

  1. With repeated misuse of the office of Governor, has the post become obsolete? Give your argument whether Governor post could be abolished.
  2. Several commissions recommending the reforms for the gubernatorial posts have been ignored by successive governments. Enumerate the suggestions made, and are they still relevant?


Print Friendly

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • The_firewithin

    FIA Please recommend if my language has got flowery.

  • The_firewithin

    1. With repeated misuse of the office of Governor, has the post become obsolete? Give your argument whether Governor post could be abolished?

    Ans: Indian Politics has various instances where the post of governor (either for appointments or for removal) has been dotted with unconstitutional functionaries a several times. For Ex.- Dharma Vira by UPA govt. in 1967 of WB or removal of Kamla Beniwal in Sikkim in 2014 by NDA govt. These references certainly substantiate the fact that the gubernatorial post have gone obsolete to an extent in the history of past few decades.

    The appointment of governor’s post is crucial as they play unique roles of president’s representatives specially in a federal system of government.
    Their role helps them to act as a conduit between the ceremonial head of state (i.e preseident) and Chief Ministers as the president’s eyes and ears in the country’s far flung states. So if this role in the complex relationship of federal governance gets marred by certain political reasons, does not alone entitle for the post to get abolished.
    Rather than this, a strong mechanism to appoint a person of public records i.e without blemish and above repoach shall be evolved.

    2. Several commissions recommending the reforms for the gubernatorial posts have been ignored by successive governments. Enumerate the suggestions made, and are they still relevant?

    Ans: The recent Instances of appointments of gubernatorial positions has exposed some of the constitutional flaws. Despite several commissions recommendations, to rectify such flaws the process still lacks a clearly defined guideline for the appointment of such crucial high posts. The central govt. search of ideology alignment might prove dangeous for federal democracy. There have been reports of commissions in this regard. Some examples of them are:

    It highlights the necessity to assure a measure to the security of tenure to the governors office. The person holding the post should be an eminent personality and should not belong to the state. The apointee should lack intense political links and their removal if the aspersions are cast based on morality, his dignity and other constitutional propriety.

    2) Recommendation of National Commission headed by CJI Venkatachaliah’s report:

    Appointments of gubernatorial posts should be entrusted to committee consisting of prime minister, home minister, speaker of lok sabha and CM of the state. Also the removal of governor can be effective only with Chief Minister’s approaval.

    The doctrine of pleasure should be deleted from the constitution. Removal of governor post shall be immune from the whims of Central government. A resolution from state legislature shall ensure the removal. Also the impeachment process by state legislatures shall be on the lines similiar to the impeachment process of president by the parliament. Localising Emergency provision’s under article 355 and 356 are also recommendeded.

    Inspite these recommendations, the appointments has been misused a several times clearly. The clash of ideology synchrony and intense political linkage are the major reasons, the central govt. encounters.

  • Arvind

    Could Have added some examples from past to further give Weightage to the Points Enumerated..