Governor
Introduction:
- There has been a serious deterioration of constitutional protections, constitutional ethics, and constitutional ethos in recent years, as evidenced by numerous constitutional bodies. The Constitution and its restrictions have been eroded by the behaviour of some State governors (particularly in those states with non-BJP governments).
- For instance, the governor of Kerala recently issued a warning to ministers, warning them that any remarks made by a minister that diminish the stature of the governor’s office may result in retaliation, including the loss of pleasure.
About Governor:
- A governor is the state’s official executive head. He plays a significant role in the state executive, serving as its top executive. The governor of each state is chosen by the federal government.
Constitutional provisions relating to the governor:
- A Governor is appointed by Article 153 for each State.
- According to Article 154, the Governor has the authority to act on behalf of the State (“Shall be exercised by him directly or through officers subordinate to him in conformity with this Constitution”).
- According to Article 154(2)(a), the Governor is not allowed to carry out any duties “conferred by Existing Law to any other Authority.”
- In accordance with Article 163, “there shall be a council of ministers, with the Chief Minister at its head, to assist and advise the Governor, except at so far as he is compelled by or under this Constitution to execute his function or any of them in his discretion.”
- In Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr., the Supreme Court (SC) rendered the following ruling on this matter in 1974: In accordance with Article 166 of the Constitution, the Governor “exercises all his authorities and functions” through issuing regulations to ensure the smooth operation of the State’s government. They are known as business rules.
- But the Court said, “whenever the constitution demands satisfaction of the President or the Governor for the exercise of any power or function by the President or the Governor, as the case may be, as in Articles 123, 213, 311(2) proviso (c), 317, 352(1), 356 and 360. According to the Constitution, the President or the Governor must be satisfied in order for the Cabinet system of government to function well.
- The Court continued, “The discretion conferred on the Governor means that as the Constitutional or the formal head of the State, the power is vested in him,” and “It is only in the exercise of the power under Article 356 that the Governor will be justified in exercising his discretion even against the aid and advice of his council of ministers as per his discretionary power.”
- “However, in all other situations where the Governor has a choice, he will act in accordance with his Council of Ministers. The establishment of a parallel government is not what the Constitution seeks to do.
- The fundamental tenet is that the Council of Ministers alone constitutes an accountable form of administration in the States and that in a democracy, elected Ministers must take accountability for every executive act.
Governor-related debates in the Constituent Assembly:
- The issue of whether the Governor should be elected or appointed by the Indian President was highly contested. The Assembly decided against this because they thought it would result in a rival State leadership.
- According to B.G. Kher, “…a Governor can do a great deal of good if he is a good Governor and he can do a tremendous deal of evil if he is a bad Governor, in spite of the very little power granted to him under the Constitution..
- R. Ambedkar stated, “The Drafting Committee felt, as everyone in this House knows, that the Governor is not to have any kind of functions — to use a well-known phraseology, no functions which he is obligated to execute either in his discretion or in his individual judgement. He must always abide by the recommendations of his ministry in accordance with the ideals of the New Constitution. Therefore, the actual question before the House is not who should be nominated or elected, but rather what authority you want to give your Governor. If the Governor has just the powers that are expressly granted to him in the Act, then he is a strictly constitutional governor. I don’t really see any very basic issues with the nomination principle.
Today’s situation:
- These discussions provide us with enough information on the Governor’s position, authority, and responsibilities. Certainly, the Governor lacks the authority to obstruct the government in day-to-day operations or to refuse to ratify bills passed by the Assembly. The Constitution, however, is being ignored by governors today, particularly in states where the opposition is in power.
- The state government and Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan have significant disagreements on a number of matters. The most recent scandal started when he demanded the resignations of numerous vice chancellors in response to a Supreme Court decision that invalidated the vice chancellor’s appointment to a technological institution. In response to statements made by the State’s Finance Minister, K. N. Balagopal, the Governor has also asked to have him removed from his Cabinet and stated that it is no longer a joy to have him on the Council of Ministers.
- The concept of the “pleasure doctrine,” which is drawn from English common law, allows the crown to terminate any employee at any moment. According to Article 164, the Governor appoints the Chief Minister, and the Governor appoints the other Ministers on the Chief Minister’s recommendation. Ministers serve at the Governor’s pleasure, it continues. The term “pleasure” is also understood to allude to the Chief Minister’s authority to fire a Minister, not the Governor, under a constitutional arrangement whereby they are appointed purely on the CM’s advise. In other words, a minister cannot be fired by a governor of an Indian state on his own.
