The Prayas ePathshala

Exams आसान है !

10 January 2024 – The Indian Express

The Governors’ Role

In our political structure, the role of State Governor is very important since it acts as a vital conduit between the federal government and the states. It emphasises cooperation and is considered a crucial component of our democratic governance. Nonetheless, there have long been heated discussions in the political, legal, and constitutional domains regarding the functions, authority, and latitude of governors in different states. Much attention has been drawn to the recent disagreement concerning bill approval, among other issues, between the State Government and the Governor of Kerala.

What led to the creation of the governorship?

Prior to Independence:

since the British Crown began to control India in 1858. Under the Governor-General’s direction, Provincial Governors served as delegates of the monarchy.
The Government of India Act, 1935, gave the governor of a province the authority to act on the recommendation of its ministers, but the governor was still granted particular duties and discretion.

Following Independence:

The Constituent Assembly deliberated on the governorship for a long time before deciding to keep it but reorient its function from the British era.
Currently, the governor is intended to be the constitutional head of state under the parliamentary and cabinet systems of government that India has embraced.
What Governor-Related Provisions Are There in the Constitution?
Every state is required to have a governor, according to Article 153. It is possible for one person to be appointed governor of two or more states.
According to Articles 155 and 156, the President appoints the Governor by warrant under his hand and seal, and the Governor serves at the President’s pleasure.
The governor is authorised to give pardons, reprieves, and other concessions under Article 161.
The Supreme Court ruled that a governor cannot pardon a prisoner on his own; rather, the governor exercises this sovereign prerogative in agreement with the State government.
The state government’s advice binds him or her.
With a few exceptions for situations of discretion, Article 163 declares that the Governor is assisted and advised in the performance of his duties by a council of ministers led by the Chief Minister.

Among the discretionary powers are:

chief minister nomination in situations where there is no clear party majority in the state legislature assembly.

During motions of no-confidence:

Should the State’s constitutional apparatus malfunction (Article 356).

The Constitution’s Articles 200 and 201 specify the governor’s authority over the passing of legislation. These articles state that when the state legislature presents a measure to the governor, they have the following options:

The measure might become an act if he or she grants consent to it.
The bill is rejected if he or she chooses not to give their assent.
If the measure does not contain money, he or she may return it to the state legislature along with a request that it be reconsidered or that certain of its contents be changed.
The governor cannot refuse to sign the law if it is reintroduced into the state legislature with or without changes.
He or she may set the bill aside for the president’s consideration, after which the president may decide to approve it or reject it, or instruct the governor to send the measure back to the state legislature for more consideration.
According to Article 361, a state’s governor is exempt from accountability to any court for the way in which they carry out their responsibilities and powers.

What Concerns India Has With the Governor Position?

Affiliation-Based Appointment: The ruling party has selected politicians and former bureaucrats to the position of governor on multiple occasions.
This has raised concerns about the objectivity and neutrality of the post. Additionally, it’s common practice to forego consulting the Chief Minister prior to appointing a governor.
From Center’s Representative to Center’s Agent: Today’s governors are referred to by their detractors as the “agents of the Centre.”
The Governor owes his appointment and continuance to the Union, according to the 2001 National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution. There are concerns that he will carry out the Union Council of Ministers’ directives.
This has led to bias and violates the neutral seat requirement of the constitution.
Misuse of Discretionary Powers: The governor’s discretionary powers have frequently been abused.
On the other hand, detractors have contended that political whims or fancies have often been the basis for the governor’s endorsement of President’s Rule in a state, rather than ‘objective material’.
Removal of Governors: Governors have occasionally been removed arbitrarily because there are no formal grounds or procedures for doing so.
No Clear Line Between Constitutional and Statutory Role: There are frequent disagreements between the governor and the state administration as a result of the constitution’s requirement that the governor act on the council of ministers’ advice and the chancellor’s statutory authority being confused.
For example, the Kerala Governor recently appointed a Vice Chancellor to an institution without going through government nomination processes.
Constitutional Gaps: The Governor may not dissolve the Assembly or appoint a chief minister without following the procedures outlined in the Constitution.
Furthermore, there is no time limit on how long a governor may refuse to sign a bill.
Friction between the governor and the relevant state governments is therefore likely to develop.

Which constitutional reforms have the Supreme Court and several committees recommended?

The 1988 Sarkaria Commission:

The Chief Minister of the state in question should be consulted before the President appoints the governor.
In addition to not being a resident of the state in which he is chosen, the governor ought to be a notable figure in some aspect of public life.
With very unusual and compelling exceptions, the governor should not be removed before the end of his tenure.
Rather than serving as the center’s representative, the governor need to serve as a liaison between the state and the centre.
The governor should refrain from undermining the democratic process by using his discretionary powers wisely and in moderation.

R. Bommai Court ruling (1994):

The lawsuit ended the adversarial Central government’s practice of arbitrarily dismissing State governments.
The ruling declared that the Assembly floor is the only place where the majority of the current administration should be tested, not the governor’s personal judgement.

Commission on Venkatachaliah (2002):

A committee made up of the prime minister, the home minister, the speaker of the Lok Sabha, and the chief minister of the state in question should be tasked with appointing governors.
Unless the governors resign or are removed by the President due to shown incompetence or misbehaviour, they should be permitted to serve out their whole five-year tenure.
Prior to removing the governor, the national government ought to confer with the Chief Minister.
The governor has no business meddling in the day-to-day operations of the state government. He ought to serve as the state government’s advisor, friend, and mentor while exercising his discretionary authority sparingly.

Union of India v. Rameshwar Prasad (2006):

The Supreme Court ruled that the Governor’s arbitrary and self-serving actions are subject to judicial scrutiny, having determined that the Governor had misused his authority when he suggested Presidential rule for Bihar.
However, Rameshwar Prasad did not address the issue of whether governors can assert immunity for extraconstitutional actions or remarks.

The Punchhi Commission (2010):

The Commission suggested amending the Constitution to remove the clause “during the pleasure of the President,” which suggests that a governor may be replaced at the whim of the national government.
Rather, the group recommended that the sole way to remove a governor would be through a resolution passed by the state legislature, giving the states greater stability and autonomy.

Union of India v. BP Singhal (2010):

The Supreme Court ruled that a governor may be removed by the president at any moment and for any reason.
This is so because Article 156(1) of the Indian Constitution states that the Governor serves “during the pleasure of the President” in their role. But the Court further decided that no arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable basis could be used to justify the removal.

Deputy Speaker and Others v. Nabam Rebia and Others (2016):

The Supreme Court in this case referenced B R Ambedkar’s observations, which state that the Governor is not granted any powers by the Constitution and cannot perform any duties at all.
He has responsibilities even though he doesn’t have any functions, and the House would be wise to keep that in mind.
The Supreme Court held that the Governor lacks general discretionary authority under Article 163 of the Constitution to act against or without the Council of Ministers’ recommendation.

Union of India v. NCT of Delhi (2018):

The Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench stressed the importance of determining the “moral values of the Constitution” using the concept of “constitutional culture.”
Governors ought to determine if the morality of the constitution is reflected in their conduct.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kaushal Kishor (2023):
The Court ruled that the only option to restrict public officials’ freedom of expression was through “reasonable restrictions,” as allowed by Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

Way Forward:

The conversation about the function of governors in India emphasises the necessity of subtle changes. Although complete elimination is thought to be unwise, suggestions have been made for open nominations, more responsibility, and restricted discretion. Maintaining democratic values while guaranteeing the efficient operation of the governor’s office requires striking a balance between state and central objectives.