Governor’s Role in State Politics: Need for Constitutional Reform in India?

Written by Kriti Sharma

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• Constitutional Position of the Governor
• The Governor’s Office: Between Law and Politics
  • Key Issues of Concern
• Landmark Cases & Commissions
  • 1. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
  • 2. Sarkaria Commission (1988)
  • 3. Punchhi Commission (2010)
• Recent Controversies Illustrating the Crisis
• Need for Constitutional Reform
  • Suggested Reforms
• Conclusion

Introduction

The office of the Governor in India occupies a unique position in the federal structure, acting as the constitutional head of a state. Appointed by the President of India, the Governor is expected to be a neutral authority who acts as a bridge between the Union and the State governments. However, in recent years, the office has increasingly been at the center of political controversies, with allegations of partisanship, misuse of discretionary powers, and obstruction of democratically elected state governments.

These controversies have led to growing demands for a re-examination of the Governor’s role and calls for constitutional and legislative reforms to ensure that the post remains impartial, dignified, and in harmony with India’s federal structure. This article explores the constitutional provisions related to the Governor, the evolution of the office, instances of political misuse, and the pressing need for reforms.

Constitutional Position of the Governor

The Governor derives powers from Articles 153 to 162 of the Indian Constitution. Every state has a Governor, who is appointed by the President (Article 155) and holds office at the pleasure of the President (Article 156).

Key powers of the Governor include:

1. Executive Powers – Appointment of the Chief Minister and other ministers; administration of oaths; holding of portfolios in special circumstances.
2. Legislative Powers – Summoning, proroguing, or dissolving the state legislature; giving assent to bills; reserving bills for the President’s consideration.
3. Judicial Powers – Granting pardons or remissions under Article 161.
4. Discretionary Powers – The Governor may act in his or her discretion in certain situations, such as:
   • Appointment of a Chief Minister when no party has a clear majority
   • Recommending President’s Rule under Article 356
   • Reserving bills for the President

The Governor’s Office: Between Law and Politics

Though the Governor is supposed to act as a constitutional head, their role has often been perceived as politicized. The fact that Governors are appointed by the Union Government, often from the ruling party or its affiliates, has led to questions of bias in political crises.

Key Issues of Concern

1. Partisan Appointments
   • Successive central governments have appointed individuals with political affiliations or loyalty to the ruling party.
   • Often, a change in the central government is followed by the dismissal or transfer of Governors appointed by the previous regime.
2. Misuse of Discretionary Powers
   • There have been numerous instances where Governors have allegedly used discretionary powers to install minority governments, delay the summoning of the assembly, or reserve bills to obstruct the legislative agenda of state governments.
3. Withholding Assent to Bills
   • Governors have delayed or withheld assent to bills passed by state legislatures, leading to governance paralysis.
   • In states like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Punjab, Governors have been accused of sitting on key legislation for extended periods.
4. Frequent Use of Article 356
   • Historically, Article 356 (President’s Rule) has been recommended by Governors in politically sensitive circumstances, often leading to criticism that they act as agents of the Centre, rather than neutral arbiters.

Landmark Cases & Commissions

Several judicial pronouncements and commission reports have addressed the role of the Governor:

1. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

• The Supreme Court restricted the arbitrary use of Article 356.
• It held that the floor of the assembly is the proper place to test the majority of a government.

2. Sarkaria Commission (1988)

• Recommended that the Governor’s appointment should be based on merit and integrity.
• Stated that the Governor should not be involved in active politics or belong to the ruling party at the Centre.

3. Punchhi Commission (2010)

• Recommended fixed tenure of 5 years for Governors.
• Stated that Governor should not return a bill without the President’s consent more than once.
• Called for restrictions on post-retirement appointments to maintain neutrality.

Despite these recommendations, few have been implemented, and the ambiguity in constitutional provisions continues to be exploited.

Recent Controversies Illustrating the Crisis

• Maharashtra (2019): The Governor invited a minority party to form the government in a late-night swearing-in ceremony, sparking constitutional outrage.
• West Bengal & Tamil Nadu: Governors have frequently been at loggerheads with Chief Ministers, delaying crucial legislation and using their office to issue politically charged statements.
• Kerala: The Governor was accused of using his discretion to delay university appointments and legislative procedures.

These cases demonstrate the growing confrontation between elected state governments and unelected Governors, undermining democratic processes and federal principles.

Need for Constitutional Reform

Given these issues, there is a strong case for reforming the Governor’s office to make it consistent with the spirit of federalism and constitutional democracy.

Suggested Reforms

1. Transparent and Non-Partisan Appointments
   • A committee comprising the Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India, and Chief Minister of the concerned state could be formed to select Governors.
2. Fixed Tenure and Removal Process
   • Ensuring a fixed 5-year tenure and specifying objective grounds for removal to safeguard against arbitrary dismissals.
3. Codification of Discretionary Powers
   • Clear definitions and limits on discretionary powers must be laid down to prevent misuse.
4. Time Limit for Assent to Bills
   • A statutory time limit (e.g., 3 months) for granting or returning assent to state bills.
5. Bar on Political Appointments Post-Retirement
   • Governors should not be eligible for political office or party roles post-tenure to maintain neutrality.
6. Judicial Review and Accountability
   • Actions of the Governor should be subject to judicial review where they affect fundamental rights or legislative functions.

Conclusion

The Governor’s office was conceived as a dignified, apolitical institution that would act as a stabilizing force in the Indian federal structure. However, in practice, the role has often veered into political territory, leading to frequent friction with elected governments, allegations of bias, and erosion of public trust.

To uphold the principles of constitutional morality, cooperative federalism, and democratic accountability, India must now move towards a comprehensive constitutional and institutional reform of the Governor’s role. By making the office more transparent, impartial, and accountable, the dignity and utility of the Governor’s position can be preserved in the spirit originally intended by the framers of the Constitution.