Role of Governors in India  Introduction 

• role of Governor in India’s political system has often been a topic of discussion, especially in light of recent Supreme Court judgments regarding the reservation of bills by Governors. 
• This issue has gained attention due to the ongoing disputes between Governors and state governments, such as the ongoing tussle between the Governor of Tamil Nadu and the state’s elected government. 
• As the constitutional head of the state executive, the Governor holds significant powers, yet these powers often lead to controversy, particularly when their actions seem politically motivated or when delays in decision-making create friction with the state government.

Role and Powers of the Governor in Indian Polity

• Constitutional and Ceremonial Role: The Governor acts as the constitutional head of the state executive. While most of the executive actions are carried out in the name of the Governor, these powers are exercised under the advice of the Council of Ministers (Article 154). Essentially, the Governor is a ceremonial figure, bridging the Centre and state.

• Constitutional Provisions: 

• • • Article 153: Requires a Governor for each state or more than one state.
    • Article 154: Bestows executive powers to the Governor, who can act directly or through subordinate officers.
    • Article 155: The President appoints the Governor for a state.
    • Article 156: Governors hold office for five years, but can be removed earlier at the discretion of the President.
    • Article 157: Specifies that the Governor must be a citizen of India and at least 35 years old.

• Discretionary Powers: Governors exercise two types of discretionary powers:

• • Constitutional Discretion: Powers clearly outlined in the Constitution, such as reserving bills for the President’s consideration and recommending President’s Rule (Article 356).
  • Situational Discretion: Powers derived from political exigencies, like inviting a leader to form the government in case of a hung assembly, or dissolving the legislative assembly when the Council of Ministers loses its majority.

Challenges with the Office of the Governor

• Appointment of Governors: The Constitution provides limited guidelines on the appointment of Governors. Apart from the age and citizenship requirements, there is little specification regarding the selection process. This has allowed the Central Government to appoint political loyalists or former politicians. For example, Sheila Dikshit, former Delhi Chief Minister, was appointed Governor of Kerala after her defeat in the Delhi Assembly elections. This raises questions about the impartiality of the Governor’s role, as the position is often seen as a reward for political loyalty.

• Acting as an Agent of the Centre: The Governor’s role has often been reduced to that of a political agent for the Central Government, particularly when appointed by the ruling party. Governors have been accused of deliberately sending biased reports to the Centre, especially in states governed by opposition parties. A notable example of this was when the Governor of Rajasthan made politically charged comments urging citizens to vote for the Prime Minister during the 2019 General Elections.

• “Retirement Package” Syndrome: The Governor’s position has been criticized as a “retirement package” for former politicians, particularly those loyal to the ruling party. This undermines the office’s integrity and affects the Governor’s effectiveness in carrying out their constitutional duties.

• Misuse of Article 356 (President’s Rule): Governors have used Article 356 (which empowers them to recommend President’s Rule) excessively, often to dismiss state governments controlled by political opponents. The Sarkaria Commission (1998) pointed out that Article 356 has been misused more than 100 times since Independence, raising concerns about the politicization of the office. One of the most prominent examples of misuse of Article 356 was the dismissal of the Karnataka government under Chief Minister S. Ramaswamy in 1989, when the Governor recommended the imposition of President’s Rule. 

• Arbitrary Removal of Governors: Governors do not enjoy the security of tenure enjoyed by Presidents. They can be removed at any time if there is a change in the Central Government. This is in stark contrast to the President’s office, which has a fixed term. For instance, in 1989, the V.P. Singh government demanded the resignation of all Governors appointed by the previous government, which led to instability.

• Misuse of Discretionary Powers: Governors have been accused of misusing their discretionary powers, especially in situations like:

• • • Formation of Governments in Hung Assemblies: Governors have sometimes been accused of favoring certain political parties in forming the government, even if they did not have the clearest majority. In Maharashtra (2019), after the state elections, the Shiv Sena, which had a pre-poll alliance with the BJP, claimed the right to form the government. However, the Governor invited BJP’s Devendra Fadnavis to form a minority government with smaller parties, despite Shiv Sena having the largest share of seats. This led to a political crisis and legal battles. The Supreme Court intervened, ordering a floor test, which resulted in the collapse of the BJP-led government and the formation of a Shiv Sena-led coalition government. 
    • Withholding Assent to Bills: Governors have delayed or withheld assent to state bills, leading to friction with state governments. This was particularly evident in Goa and Tamil Nadu, where delays in bill assent created political unrest.
    • Interference in State Administration: Some Governors have been involved in day-to-day administration of the state, such as interfering in official transfers or university matters, even when these are under the purview of the state government. In Uttarakhand (2016), during a political crisis, the Governor’s interference in administrative matters was seen as biased, favoring the BJP over the ruling Congress. The Supreme Court intervened, overturning the Governor’s actions and restoring the Congress government led by Harish Rawat. 

• Reservation of Bills: The ‘Pocket Veto’: One significant issue with the Governor’s office is the reservation of bills. Under Article 200, a Governor can either give assent to a bill or withhold it, sending it back to the legislature for reconsideration. However, the Constitution does not specify a timeframe for this decision, allowing Governors to indefinitely delay the process. This has resulted in what is known as the ‘pocket veto’, where the Governor delays action on a bill to prevent its passage. For instance, in 2021, the Tamil Nadu government passed a bill that exempted the state from the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET), which has been a contentious issue in the state due to the belief that it disproportionately affects students from economically weaker sections. However, the Governor delayed giving assent to this bill, citing the need for further consultations, which many saw as an attempt to stall the passage of a legislation that was politically inconvenient for the central government.

Key Supreme Court Judgments

Several Supreme Court judgments have played a significant role in limiting the discretionary powers of the Governor, ensuring a more accountable and transparent process:

• State of TN v/s Governor of TN (2025): The SC declared the prolonged refusal of assent to 10 bills by the Governor as illegal and set strict timelines for the Governor to act on such matters. The court also recommended that the President seek advice from the SC under Article 143 for clarity on the constitutional issues involved. The Supreme Court laid down time-bound guidelines for Governors under Article 200: 

• Assent or reservation (on advice of Council of Ministers): Within 1 month 
• Withholding assent (against Council’s advice): Must return with message within 3 months 
• Reservation (against advice): Must within 3 months 
• Post-reconsideration assent: Must be given within 1 month 
• The Supreme Court also ruled that a Governor cannot reserve a bill for the President after the State Assembly passes it a second time without any changes. According to the Constitution, the Governor must give assent in such cases and cannot withhold it.
• The Supreme Court also addressed the President’s role under Article 201, which deals with bills reserved by Governors. It held that the President cannot delay the decision on such bills indefinitely. The Court said that this kind of delay can be questioned in court.
• Referring to Article 143, the Court noted that if a bill is reserved because it may be unconstitutional, the President should ideally seek the Supreme Court’s opinion.

• Samsher Singh v/s State of Punjab (1974): This case emphasized that the Governor’s discretion must always be in concurrence with the Council of Ministers and should not go against their wishes.
• SR Bommai v/s Union of India (1994): The judgment focused on Article 356, ruling that floor tests should be conducted in the state legislature to determine the majority, not based on the Governor’s subjective opinion.
• Rameshwar Prasad (2006): Clarified that personal immunity provided to Governors under Article 361 does not protect them from legal scrutiny, allowing for judicial review of their discretionary decisions.
• NCT Delhi v/s Union of India (2018): Reinforced that the Lt. Governor of Delhi must work based on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, thereby limiting his power to refer matters to the President.

Recommendations By Various Committees & Commissions

• First Administrative Reforms Commission (1966):

• • • Governor’s Appointment:
    • The Governor should possess significant experience in public life and administration, ensuring political neutrality.
    • Retired judges should not be appointed as Governors, and the Chief Minister should be consulted before making the appointment.
  • Discretionary Powers:
    • Guidelines for the exercise of discretionary powers by Governors must be formulated and approved by the Inter-State Council and the Central Government.
    • Governors should act on their own judgment in matters like the submission of bills and reserving bills for the President’s consideration.

• Rajamannar Committee

• • • Governor as Constitutional Head:
    • The Governor should act as the constitutional head of the state and not as an agent of the central government. This recommendation emphasizes the need for the Governor to preserve state autonomy within India’s federal structure.
    • Dealing with President’s Rule:
    • The committee suggested the deletion of Articles 356 and 357, which deal with the imposition of President’s Rule, aiming to prevent their misuse by the central government to undermine state autonomy.
  • Sarkaria Commission: 
    • Appointment of Governors:
    • Governors should be eminent individuals who are not from the state they are appointed to serve. Preference should be given to individuals from minority groups.
    • It recommended amending Article 155 to mandate the consultation of the State Chief Minister before the appointment of the Governor.
    • Removal of Governors:
    • Governors should not be removed before completing their five-year tenure unless in rare and compelling circumstances.
    • The Commission also provided guidelines for situations where no single party has secured a majority, ensuring a fair process of forming the government.

• Venkatachaliah Commission (2002)

• • Governor’s Appointment and Removal:
  • The Commission reiterated the Sarkaria Commission’s recommendations on the qualifications and impartiality of Governors.
  • If a Governor needs to be removed before completing their term, it should only be after consulting the Chief Minister.
  • A six-month time limit for a Governor to either grant assent to a bill or reserve it for the President’s consideration was recommended.
  • Power to Dismiss State Governments:
  • The Commission suggested that the Governor should not have the power to dismiss a state government as long as it has the support and confidence of the Legislative Assembly.
• Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2nd ARC):
  • Non-Partisan Appointments:
  • The 2nd ARC proposed that Governors should be non-partisan, with a strong background in public life and administration. 
  • This ensures that their actions are guided by impartiality and the principles of public service rather than political interests.
  • Clear Guidelines for Discretionary Powers:
  • The 2nd ARC recommended that the Inter-State Council establish clear guidelines for Governors in exercising discretionary powers. This would ensure that decisions made by the Governor are transparent and in line with the Constitution.
• Punchhi Commission:
  • Governor’s Appointment:
  • The Punchhi Commission recommended that Governors should not have participated in active politics, even at the local level, for a few years prior to their appointment. This ensures that the appointment is free from political bias.
  • Removal and Impeachment:
  • The Commission suggested that Governors should only be removed by a resolution of the State legislature and recommended the deletion of the “doctrine of pleasure of the President” from the Constitution.
  •  It further suggested the introduction of impeachment provisions for Governors, akin to those for the President.
  • Power to Sanction Prosecution:
  • The Punchhi Commission proposed that Governors should have the right to sanction the prosecution of a Minister, even against the advice of the Council of Ministers.

Way Forward

• Political Neutrality in Appointment: It is critical that Governors are selected based on merit and impartiality, without strong political affiliations. A consultative process with the Chief Minister can ensure that the appointment aligns with the constitutional ethos of state autonomy.
• Clear Discretionary Guidelines: There should be a clearly defined framework for Governors to exercise discretionary powers, especially in matters like the formation of governments in hung assemblies and withholding assent to state bills.
• Timely Action on Bills: Governors must be required to take timely action on bills, with clear deadlines set for the reservation or assent of bills, thereby ensuring that the state legislature’s functioning is not unnecessarily delayed.
• Empowerment of State Legislatures: The process of removing a Governor or impeaching them should be democratized, empowering the state legislature to play an active role in such decisions, in line with democratic principles.
• Balancing Power Between Centre and State: Reforms should aim at clarifying the Governor’s role as a neutral constitutional figure rather than an agent of the central government, ensuring that state autonomy is preserved.

• Strengthening State-Centre Coordination: Effective coordination between the State and the Centre can be achieved by addressing federal concerns and ensuring that the powers vested in the Governor are used in the spirit of cooperative federalism.