Governor's Role in a Democracy

The Supreme Court of India questioned Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi for violating his constitutional duty by referring certain Bills to the President instead of granting assent after they were re-adopted by the State Assembly. The Court suggested that the Governor’s move was meant to bypass his obligation under Article 200 of the Constitution. A 2023 ruling had clarified that Governors must return Bills to the legislature if withholding assent, and if passed again, they must approve them.

Governors in India often face allegations of political bias, with accusations of favoring the ruling party at the Center, leading to conflicts with state governments. They have been criticized for withholding or delaying assent to Bills, disrupting legislative processes, as seen in Tamil Nadu and Kerala. The misuse of discretionary powers has also been a concern, with instances of destabilizing elected governments. Additionally, the lack of accountability, as they are not answerable to the state legislature, further exacerbates governance challenges.

Executive Head of the State

• The Governor is the chief executive head of the state, acting as a nominal authority and representative of the central government.
• Under Article 154, all executive actions of the state government are carried out in the Governor’s name.
• As per Article 166, the Governor formulates rules for the transaction of business.
• The Governor appoints the Chief Minister and, on their advice, the Council of Ministers.

Legislative Role

• The Governor serves as the constitutional link between the state legislature and the Union.
• Under Article 174, the Governor summons, prorogues, and dissolves the state assembly.
• A Bill requires the Governor’s assent to become law or may be reserved for the President’s consideration under Article 200.
• Under Article 207, no Money Bill can be introduced in the state assembly without the Governor’s recommendation.

Administrative

• The Governor appoints key state officials such as:
  • Advocate General (Article 165).
  • Members of the State Public Service Commission (Article 316).
  • Vice-Chancellors of state universities, which has been a subject of controversy.
• These appointments are essential for state governance and are generally made in consultation with the state government

Discretionary Powers

• The Governor can act independently in specific situations where the Constitution grants discretion.
• Government Formation: In case of a hung assembly, the Governor decides which party to invite to form the government.
• Recommending President’s Rule under Article 356 if the state government fails to function constitutionally.

Implementing President’s Rule

• Under Article 356, the Governor can recommend President’s Rule if the constitutional machinery in a state fails.
• Though intended as an emergency provision, it has often been misused for political reasons.
• The Supreme Court has ruled that such recommendations must be justified and not arbitrary.

Judicial Powers

• Under Article 161, the Governor can:
  • Grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions for offenses against state laws.
  • Unlike the President, the Governor cannot pardon death sentences or court-martial cases.
• This power ensures a system of checks and balances while allowing humanitarian considerations in justice.

Special Responsibilities for Scheduled Areas and Tribal Welfare

• In Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram, the Governor has special powers over Scheduled Areas.
• These states are administered as Autonomous Districts under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.
• The Governor can intervene in tribal administration to protect indigenous rights and promote welfare policies.

Delay in Granting Assent to Bills

• Governors have increasingly withheld or delayed assent to Bills passed by state legislatures, undermining the legislative process and federalism.
• Article 200 allows Governors to reserve Bills for the President’s consideration, but excessive delays create legislative paralysis.
• The Supreme Court has ruled that the phrase “as soon as possible” in Article 200 must be followed, yet delays of over two years have been observed in multiple states.
• Examples: Punjab -  Governor withheld assent to multiple Bills for two years, prompting Supreme Court intervention. Tamil Nadu - Governor delayed 12 Bills, leading to judicial intervention.

Misuse of Discretionary Powers

• Governor’s discretionary powers when used arbitrarily leads to parties forming the government in a hung assembly due to the absence of clear guidelines.
• Inconsistent decisions sometimes favor certain political parties, distorting the democratic mandate.
• Examples: Karnataka (2018) -  Governor gave a party 15 days to prove majority, later reduced to 24 hours by the Supreme Court. Maharashtra (2019) - Governor Koshyari swore in a CM candidate without majority, leading to an 80-hour government.

Lack of Accountability and Transparency

• Unlike the Chief Minister, who is accountable to the legislature, the Governor is only accountable to the President and can be removed at the Union government’s discretion (Article 156).
• The lack of impeachment provisions shields Governors from scrutiny despite holding significant powers.
• This leads to instances where Governors act without facing direct consequences for their decisions.

Overreach in Administrative Matters

• Governors have increasingly interfered in day-to-day governance, bypassing the elected Chief Minister and Council of Ministers (Article 163).
• This results in governance paralysis, as Governors refuse to clear files, delay cabinet decisions, or publicly criticize state policies.
• Example: Delhi (2023) -  Clashes between the Lieutenant Governor and the state government over bureaucratic appointments led the Supreme Court to rule that Delhi’s elected government has control over services, not the LG.

Partisan Conduct as Center’s Agent

• Governors, appointed by the Central Government, often act in ways that align with the ruling party at the Union, raising concerns about political bias.
• Misuse of discretionary powers to destabilize opposition-led state governments is a recurring issue.
• Examples: Arunachal Pradesh (2016) - Governor’s actions led to the dismissal of the elected government, which was later reinstated by the Supreme Court. West Bengal (2023) - The Governor unilaterally appointed Vice-Chancellors, leading to a legal battle with the state government.

Conflict Over University Appointments

• As Chancellors of state universities, Governors often interfere in the selection of Vice-Chancellors, bypassing the elected government’s role.
• This has led to standoffs between Governors and state governments, frequently requiring judicial intervention.
• The ongoing conflict has raised concerns about whether Governors should continue serving as university Chancellors.
• Example: West Bengal (2023) -  The Governor unilaterally appointed Vice-Chancellors, leading to a legal dispute with the state government.

Arbitrary Use of President’s Rule

• Governors have historically been instrumental in invoking Article 356 (President’s Rule) on dubious grounds, leading to the dismissal of elected governments.
• Though the S.R. Bommai judgment (1994) limited such misuse, Governors continue to play a role in politically motivated dismissals.
• Example: Uttarakhand (2016) - The Governor recommended President’s Rule just before a floor test, raising concerns of political interference.

Defining Time Limits for Governors’ Decisions

• Governors should act on Bills within a fixed timeframe to prevent legislative paralysis and uphold federal principles.
• Punjab case (2023): Supreme Court ruled that Governors cannot indefinitely delay assent to Bills, reinforcing the need for clear timelines.
• Punchhi Commission (2010): Recommended a six-month limit for Governors to decide on reserved Bills.

Limiting Discretionary Powers

• Government formation after elections must follow clear rules to prevent partisan bias.
• S.R. Bommai judgment (1994): Limited the Governor’s power to dismiss governments, setting a precedent for defining post-election roles.
• Punchhi Commission: Recommended a structured order for inviting parties to form a government:
  • Pre-poll alliances
  • Single largest party
  • Post-poll alliances
• This approach prevents political manipulation in hung assemblies.

Ensuring Neutrality in University Appointments

• Governor’s powers as Chancellor can be reassessed.
• Sarkaria Commission (1988): Suggested that Governors should not have statutory powers unrelated to their constitutional role; states should have more say in university governance.
• As recently, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala passed Bills reducing the Governor’s role in appointing Vice-Chancellors. There must be establishment of  state-level independent commissions to handle university appointments and depoliticize the process.

Revising the Appointment and Removal Process

• The appointment process should be transparent to ensure Governors act independently, not as political agents of the Centre.
• Sarkaria Commission: Recommended that Governors should be appointed after consulting the Chief Minister to reduce political bias.
• Punchhi Commission: Advised that Governors should not have recent political affiliations to maintain neutrality.

Holding Governors Accountable Through Judicial Review

• Article 361 grants immunity to Governors, but their actions should still be subject to judicial review.
• Rameshwar Prasad case (2006): Ruled that Governors’ decisions can be reviewed if found to be malicious or unconstitutional.
• Proposed Reform: Introduce a Governor’s Annual Report to the Rajya Sabha for parliamentary accountability. Consider a constitutional amendment to increase transparency and judicial scrutiny.

Clear Guidelines on Imposing President’s Rule

• Article 356 (President’s Rule) has been misused for dismissing elected governments, necessitating stricter safeguards.
• S.R. Bommai case (1994): Mandated that President’s Rule must be justified and subject to judicial review.
• Punchhi Commission: Recommended:
  • Protecting state rights by limiting the Centre’s power during emergencies.
  • Targeted interventions in troubled areas instead of imposing statewide emergency rule.
  • Limiting the duration of President’s Rule to three months.
• Sarkaria Commission: Suggested President’s Rule should be a last resort when all other alternatives fail.

Creating an Impeachment Process for Governors

• Currently, Governors can only be removed by the President, making them unaccountable to states.
• Punchhi Commission: Suggested introducing an impeachment process similar to that of the President, allowing state legislatures to pass a resolution for removal.
• BP Singhal vs Union of India (2010):
  • Supreme Court upheld the pleasure doctrine but emphasized that a Governor’s removal must have a valid reason.
  • The Centre must provide justification if challenged.

Read This Article Here: Inter-State Council

The Governor's role is crucial but has sparked controversy due to delays in assent, political interference, and excessive use of discretionary powers. The Supreme Court has underscored the need to uphold constitutional and democratic principles. Strengthening accountability through judicial scrutiny and parliamentary oversight can help curb the  misuse of authority.