The Constitution provides for the Governor to act as the Constitutional head of the state and as the representative of the Union government. This ‘dual capacity’ is an essential part of Indian governance, providing a vital link between the Union Government and the State Government. The discord between states and Governors often concerns the selection of the party to form a government, the deadline for proving majority, sitting on Bills, and passing negative remarks on the state administration. This friction has resulted in the Governor being referred to with negative terms like an agent of the Centre, Puppet and rubber stamps.
Constitutional Provisions Related to the Governor
Constitutional provisions related to the office of the Governor are enshrined in the Constitution of India. Article 153 states that there shall be a Governor for each State, but that one person can be appointed as a Governor for two or more States. A Governor is appointed by the President and is a nominee of the Central Government. According to Articles 157 and 158, specific eligibility requirements must be met to qualify for the post of governor. Further, the Governor has the power to grant pardons, reprieves, etc. (Article 161). In the exercise of his functions, a Council of Ministers (CoM) with the Chief Minister at the head aids and advises the Governor, except in certain conditions where discretion is allowed (Article 163).
Friction Points in Governor-State Relations
Though the Governor is envisaged as an apolitical head, they do enjoy certain discretionary powers granted under the Constitution. These include giving or withholding assent to a Bill passed by the state legislature and determining the time needed for a party to prove its majority. However, the Constitution does not lay down any provisions for the manner in which the Governor and the state must engage publicly when there is a difference of opinion. Even more, the Governor’s tenure depends solely on the pleasure of the President, creating fears that the governor might act according to the Union Council of Ministers’ instructions.
Suggested Reforms
Several commissions and committees have suggested reforms over time. These include the Punchhi Commission (2010), Sarkaria Commission (1988), Administrative Reforms Commission (1968), Rajamannar Committee (1971), and Justice V.Chelliah Commission (2002). The recommended reforms range from changes in the appointment and removal of Governors, amendments to Article 356, to the establishment of a ‘Code of Conduct’ for Governors.
Appointment and Removal of Governor
The Punchhi Commission (2010) suggested provisions for the impeachment of the governor by the state legislature and for the state’s chief minister to have a say in the governor’s appointment.
Use of Article 356
Both the Punchhi Commission (2010) and the Sarkaria Commission (1988) suggested that Article 356 should only be used in very rare cases, when it becomes unavoidable to restore the breakdown of constitutional machinery in the State.
Dismissal of State Government under Article 356
The landmark S.R. Bommai Judgment (1994) put an end to arbitrary dismissal of State governments by a hostile Central government. The verdict ruled that only the floor of the Assembly, not the subjective opinion of the Governor, should test the majority of the government of the day.
Discretionary Powers
The Supreme Court in the Nabam Rebia judgment (2016) ruled that the Governor’s discretionary powers are limited and his actions should not be arbitrary or fanciful.
Way Forward
Strengthening Federalism is a way forward to avoid potential misuse of the Governor’s office. This requires reinforcing the Inter-State council and Rajya Sabha’s role as the chamber of federalism. Reforming the method of appointment of Governor is also suggested, with the appointment made from a panel prepared by the state legislature and appointed by the Inter-state Council, not the central government. Lastly, establishing a ‘Code of Conduct’ for Governors would guide the exercise of the governor’s discretion and his powers which he is entitled to use based on his judgement.
