India’s Constitution provides the President with the authority to appoint and remove Governors, under Articles 155 and 156. The Governor holds office “during the pleasure of the President” and if this pleasure is withdrawn prior to the end of the five-year term, the Governor steps down. Although the President operates based on the advise of Prime Minister and council of ministers, in essence, the central government has the power to appoint and remove the Governor.
Tensions in the Governor-State Relationship
Over the years, disputes between states and Governors have mainly revolved around the selection of the party to form a government, deadline for proving majority, sitting on Bills, and passing negative remarks on the state administration. Unfortunately, these disagreements have often led Governors to be negatively labelled as agents of the Centre, puppets, and rubber stamps.
What Occurs When Disagreements Arise Between States and the Governor?
When disagreements do occur, the Constitution does not outline how the Governor and the state should engage. Instead, conciliation has been traditionally guided by mutual respect for each other’s boundaries. For example, the Rajasthan High Court in the Surya Narain Choudhary vs Union of India case ruled that the President’s pleasure was non-justiciable, meaning the Governor had no security of tenure and could be removed at any time by the President.
Subsequently, in the BP Singhal vs Union of India case, the Supreme Court further clarified the pleasure doctrine, stating that while there are no restrictions on it, a cause is still required for withdrawal of the pleasure. If a dismissed Governor approaches the court, the Centre would then have to justify its decision.
Recommendations for Reform by Various Commissions
There have been numerous suggestions for reforms in the appointment and function of Governors. The Sarkaria Commission recommended Governors not be dismissed before completing their five-year term, barring “rare and compelling” circumstances. Additionally, Venkatachaliah Commission suggested that Governors should ordinarily complete their five-year term and if removal is required beforehand, consultation with the Chief Minister should be done. Meanwhile, the Punchhi Commission proposed removing the phrase “during the pleasure of the President” from the Constitution, advocating for Governor removal only by resolution of the state legislature.
Strengthening Federalism and Reforming Governor Appointment
In order to curtail potential misuse of the Governor’s office, steps must be taken to bolster federal setup in India. Roles of structures like the Inter-State council and Rajya Sabha as the chamber of federalism should be reinforced.
Furthermore, the process of Governor appointment requires reform. One suggestion is to create a panel prepared by the state legislature from which selections can be made. The actual appointing authority should then be the Inter-State Council, rather than the central government.
Establishing a Code of Conduct for the Governor
The establishment of a ‘Code of Conduct’ could guide the exercise of the Governor’s discretionary powers and judgement. Such a code would outline certain ‘norms and principles’ to ensure accountable use of power.
Previous Year Questions on Governor’s Powers in UPSC Civil Services Examination
In the UPSC Civil Services Examination, candidates were asked about the discretionary powers given to the Governor of a State, such as sending reports to the President of India for imposing President’s rule, appointing Ministers, reserving bills passed by the State Legislature for consideration of the President of India and making rules to conduct the business of the State Government. Out of these options, sending reports to the President of India for imposing President’s rule and reserving bills passed by State Legislature for consideration of the President of India are correct discretionary powers of the Governor.
In the Mains Examination, candidates were asked to examine if the Supreme Court Judgment could settle political disputes between the Lt. Governor and elected government of Delhi, and to discuss the conditions for the Governor to exercise legislative powers and the legality of re-promulgating ordinances without presenting them to the Legislature.
