Mains Practice Questions

Introduction

The Governor, as the constitutional head of a state, plays a crucial role in maintaining the federal structure of India.

• However, the increasing use of discretionary powers (under Article 163)—especially in areas such as assent to bills, government formation, and recommending President’s Rule—has led to friction between the Centre and states.
• This has raised concerns about federal harmony, political neutrality, and constitutional propriety.

Body

Discretionary Powers of the Governor and Constitutional Friction:

• Legislative Discretion
  • Withholding or Delaying Assent to Bills (Article 200, 201): Governors have frequently delayed assent or reserved bills for the President, leading to legislative paralysis.
    • Example: In Tamil Nadu (2023), the Governor withheld multiple bills, prompting Supreme Court intervention.
• Political Discretion
  • Government Formation in a Hung Assembly: Lack of clear guidelines allows Governors to invite parties of their preference.
    • Example: In Karnataka (2018), the Governor gave 15 days to a party without majority support, later reduced by the Supreme Court.
  • Recommending President’s Rule (Article 356): Often misused to destabilize opposition-led governments.
    • Example: In Uttarakhand (2016), the Governor recommends President’s Rule just before a floor test.
• Administrative and Institutional Involvement
  • Interference in University Appointments: Governors, as Chancellors of state universities, have overridden elected governments.
    • Example: In West Bengal (2023), unilateral VC appointments led to a legal battle.

Reforms to Strengthen Federal Harmony:

• Defining Time Limits for Assent to Bills: The Supreme Court ruled that Governors must act “as soon as possible.”
  • The Punchhi Commission (2010) suggested a six-month limit for bill consideration.
• Clear Guidelines for Government Formation: Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions emphasized the need for clarity to prevent arbitrary decisions.
  • Follow a structured order:
    • Pre-poll alliances
    • Single largest party
    • Post-poll coalitions
• Reforming the Appointment and Removal Process: Consultation with Chief Ministers before appointment, as suggested by the Sarkaria Commission.
  • Punchhi Commission (2010) recommended that Governors should be non-political personalities.
• Holding Governors Accountable: Judicial Review of Governor’s Actions (Rameshwar Prasad Case, 2006) to prevent unconstitutional decisions.
  • Requiring governor annual reports to the Rajya Sabha for transparency.
• President’s Rule (Article 356) as a last resort:
  • S.R. Bommai Judgment (1994): President’s Rule should be a last resort and subject to judicial review.
  • Sarkaria Commission recommended targeted interventions instead of dismissing entire governments.
• Introducing an Impeachment Process for Governors
  • The Punchhi Commission suggested an impeachment mechanism similar to the President’s.
  • The Supreme Court (BP Singhal case, 2010) ruled that Governor removals must be based on valid reasons.

Conclusion

While the Governor plays a vital role in India’s constitutional framework, frequent misuse of discretionary powers has led to Centre-state tensions. Implementing clear guidelines, time limits, and accountability measures will help ensure that the Governor remains a neutral constitutional authority rather than a tool for political maneuvering. A reformed Governor’s office will strengthen federal harmony and uphold democratic principles.