This blog is written by Arya Aradhana Routray, a Second-year law student of National Law University, Odisha

INTRODUCTION

The role of the Governor in India constitutes a substantial yet potentially misunderstood governance position. Being a constitutional head of a state, the governor is akin to the President of India, representing both ceremonial and administrative functions. The governor, thus, is a formal position of powers and responsibilities, ranging from appointing the Chief Minister to giving assent to legislation, as all are envisaged from Article 152 to Article 167 of the Constitution of India. The father of the Indian Constitution, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had very well explained how a governor should exercise his discretion as "the representative of the people as a whole," rather than as "the representative of a party," in his address on the constitutional duty of governors.

The Constitution conferred several powers on Governors, such as summoning and proroguing the state legislature, dissolving the legislative assembly, and supervising the administration of certain state laws. In addition, during periods of political instability, the Governors exercise discretion wherein they have the authority to recommend the President's Rule if the state government cannot function effectively. However, the exercise of such powers often sparks controversy, particularly over the extent to which the Governor might be said to be participating in the politics of the states. His role has been cynically used for the pursuit of political ambitions that are counter to the democratically and federally aimed ideals. Whether it is acceptable for a Governor to act against an elected government of the state, which forms part of the four-tier structure of governance established by the Constitution, has raised important questions regarding the balance of power and the safeguard of constitutional norms.

This blog is an attempt to analyze the position of the Governor, delve into the issues and controversy surrounding it, and the landmark judgments related to the role of the governor. This will help us put together a comprehensive understanding of how the position of Governor functions within the framework of Indian democracy.

ISSUES RELATED TO THE POST OF GOVERNOR IN INDIA

There have been several instances of governor positions being misused, under the sway of the national ruling party. The government has appointed individuals with ties to particular political perspectives, including politicians and ex-bureaucrats, as governors. As apparent in cases like Karnataka and Goa, this runs contrary to the impartial function as required by the constitution.

1. Appointments Based on Affiliation: There have been multiple appointments of politicians and former bureaucrats associated with the ruling party to the position of governor. This has raised concerns about the objectivity and neutrality of the post.

2. From Center's Representative to Center's Agent: Because the governors are chosen and dismissed by the Central Government, they now function as the "agents of the Center." Derogatory labels like "puppet," and "rubber stamp" have been referred to the governors due to these instances.

3. Governor recommends President’s Rule- The discretionary power granted to the Governor under Article 356[1] is the most disputed. This power of the governor recommends the president's rule on account of the failure of constitutional machinery in the state that has not always been based on objective material. Partisan politics, whims, and fancy have also contributed. Union governments have abused this power on numerous occasions.

4. No Clear Separation of the Governor's Statutory and Constitutional Roles: The governor's statutory authority as chancellor is not separated from his constitutional obligation to act on the council of ministers' advice. Numerous disagreements have arisen as a result between the state government and the governor. For instance, a controversy arose when the Kerala Governor appointed a Vice Chancellor to a university without following the formal nomination process.

5. Abuse of Discretionary Power of CM Appointment: The Office of the Governor has been charged with taking a partisan stance when appointing CMs in situations where one party does not have the majority.

6. Assembly Convening and Dissolution: Politics that involve postponing the state legislative assembly's convening and dissolution have been linked to the Office of the Governor. The Governor has the authority to summon, prorogue, and dissolve the House under Article 174[2]. Even while this power must be exercised with the recommendation of the Cabinet, the Governor can be compelled to work in the ruling party's favour at the Centre. This was witnessed in Arunachal Pradesh (2016) and Rajasthan (2020).

JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS

In India, there have been several judicial pronouncements and controversies related to the office of Governors. These cases often revolve around the exercise of the Governor's powers, the appointment and dismissal of state governments, and constitutional issues. Here are a few notable cases and judicial pronouncements:

Shamsher Singh v State of Punjab [3] was the first case where the seven-judge panel considered the duties and authority of a state governor. According to the court's decision, “the governor lacks executive authority and may make decisions on recommendation of the cabinet. In reality, the executive branch of government is accountable to the legislative.”

In the Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India [4] case, the Supreme Court of India tackled the issue of the Governor's authority in approving or withholding consent for bills passed by the state legislature. The court elucidated the restricted scope of the Governor's discretion in this matter. The Supreme Court determined that the Governor's decision to dissolve the Legislative Assembly of Bihar was both unconstitutional and driven by improper motives.

In the widely discussed case of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India [5], the Supreme Court made its most substantial intervention aimed at restricting the unfettered usage of Article 356. In this case, it was disputed that Bommai's government in Karnataka was arbitrarily removed. The court determined that the report used by the President to declare an emergency was subjective. It was highlighted that the "breakdown of constitutional machinery" meant it was impossible, not just difficult, to run the government by the Constitution. This ruling made sure that the Governor's report was unbiased and reasonably guaranteed that it couldn't be used unfairly to overthrow the elected governments.

The Governor called the House one month before the planned date in the cases of Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker [6]. Because the incumbent CM had not demonstrated his majority in the House, the Governor called for the President's rule and dissolved the Assembly. The SC said “The governor in this circumstance cannot bring the House to order. It was decided that the Governor's ability to exercise his power under Article 174 requires the involvement and consultation of the Cabinet.”

RECOMMENDED REFORMS TO ADDRESS CONCERNS ON GOVERNOR

● The “Rajamannar Committee” (1971) proposed that Articles 356 and 357 be repealed. To resolve issues raised by Article 356, it was suggested that safeguards against the arbitrary actions of the ruling party be incorporated into the Constitution and further emphasized Governors as the head of the State rather than seeing themselves as agents of the federal government.

● The “Sarkaria Commission” (1988) advised that Article 356 only be used in instances when it’s necessary to restore the State's ruptured constitutional mechanisms. It also advocated giving the state government a heads-up before invoking Article 356 in an occurrence that violates constitutional parameters.

● The "Justice V.Chelliah Commission” (2002) suggested that Article 356 should only be used in extreme cases when all other alternatives under Articles 256, 257, and 355 have been exhausted.

● ·The “Punchhi Commission” (2010) suggested amending Articles 355 and 356 to protect the interests of the States and prevent any form of abuse by the central government.

CONCLUSION

The position of the governor is crucial for India's federal system to remain intact. The drafters of the Constitution intended the governor to serve as an interface, linking the Union and, the states. To make sure that the states are managed in compliance with constitutional guidelines, the Governor was given discretionary powers which have drawn a lot of criticism. However, abolishing this position is not the solution. Punchii and Sarkaria commissions have advocated for maintaining the status quo. To preserve the office's credibility and impartiality and to limit the Governor's arbitrary powers, it would be appropriate to set up the Governor's apolitical appointment, fixed term, and valid reasons for removal. Adopting the above recommendations would be an effective step towards ensuring the governor's office is independent and impartial, as desired by the Constitution's framers. Enhancing India's federal system is necessary to stop gubernatorial abuse. The governor must exercise his discretion and personal judgment while acting responsibly, impartially, and effectively for the smooth operation of the government.

REFERENCES

1. Diksha Munjal, ‘The office of the Governor: its origins, powers, and controversies’, (2023) The Hindu https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/federalism-the-office-of-the-governor-in-india/article65882166.ece/amp/ accessed 14 September 2024.

2. Alok Prasanna Kumar, ‘It is high time the colonial institution of the governor is reined in’, (2023) The Indian Express https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/governor-r-n-ravi-tamil-n-public-service-commission-tn-prisoners-premature-release-supreme-court-9035307/ accessed 10 September 2024.

3. Rakhahari Chatterji, ‘Recurring controversy about Governor’s role in state politics’, (2020) ORF Online https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/recurring-controversy-governor-role-state-politics-67433/ accessed 10 September 2024.

4. Praveen Kumar, ‘Role of Governor in Central State Relationship’, (2018) 15(1) Journal of Advances and Scholarly Researches in Allied Education 551.

5. M.P. Singh, ‘Discretionary Powers of the Governor of a State in India’, (2017) 63 Indian Journal of Public Administration 372-379.

6. P.S. Ramamohan Rao, ‘Governors and Guidelines’, (2015) The Hindu https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/Governors-and-guidelines/article10753822.ece. accessed 14 September 2024.

[1] India Const. Art. 356, cl.1.

[2] India Const. Art. 174, cl. 2(a), (b).

[3] AIR 1974 SC 2192

[4] (2006) 2 SCC 1

[5] AIR 1994 SC 1918

[6] 2017 13 SCC 332