Author: Ekroop Gumber, Symbiosis Law School, Pune
Introduction
When India set up its Constitution in 1950, B.R. Ambedkar was very clear in his mind about the role of the Governor. The Governor, in his opinion, should be a "constitutional sentinel," not an all-powerful ruler. Nevertheless, the Governor's office is still the subject of controversy and debate. A PRS Legislative Research survey in 2023 found that during the year, political deadlocks resulting from friction between the Governor and the State were reported in more than seven major states. Why is this office so important? How much power does the Governor really have, and how are these powers regulated?
This blog delves into the Governor's powers from a constitutional, judicial, and philosophical perspective. By analysing case laws that have set precedents, picking up insights from scholars, and referring to the Constitution, it charts how the office is still a key player in the evolution of federalism and democratic accountability. Ancient philosopher Lao Tzu wisely said, "To lead the people, walk behind them." Is the Governor really coming from behind the democratic will—or sometimes walking ahead?
Understanding the Governor's Position within the Constitutional Framework
A Nominal Head but Not a Mere Figurehead
The Constitution portrays the Governor as the "Executive Head of the State" (Art. 153–154). The Indian Governor's role is actually more extensive than that of the British one, although it is largely based on the same system. While the President is bound to act on the advice of the Union Cabinet, the Governor is said to "keep the keys" at the junction of State politics and Union oversight.
The Articles 154, 163 and 164 speak of executive powers, 168-174 of legislative powers, 175-176 of communication powers, 200 of assent functions, and 213 of ordinance powers.
Nevertheless, Article 163 is still the pivot: the Governor is required to take ministerial advice save in those matters where the Constitution vests him with discretion. It is this uncertainty that drives controversy.
Executive Powers: The Governor as the Holder of Constitutional Responsibility
Non-exhaustive, the governor’s executive powers are written in the constitution and in particular in the Article 154, where the executive authority of the state is said to be vested in the Governor. All executive actions are ordered to be done under his authority as per Article 166.
Appointment Powers
Chief Minister: Governor shall appoint the Chief Minister as per Art. 164(1), typically the leader of the majority party.
Council of Ministers: They are appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of the CM.
Judicial Scrutiny
The Supreme Court in Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, (1974) 2 SCC 831, recognized the Governor as a constitutional head, who should act on the aid and advice of ministers except in very few cases and those exceptions should be very sparse.
However, the term "exceptional circumstances" has been stretched quite a bit.
Discretionary Powers: The Most Debated Domain
Philosopher Montesquieu warned that “power ought to check power.” Discretionary powers are expected to be such a check—but the question of their misuse is raised by their very misuse.
Situations Where Discretion Are
Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India, (2006) 2 SCC 1: In this case, the Court held that the Governor must maintain not morality of politics but morality of the constitution.
Recommendation of President’s Rule (Art. 356): In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1, the Supreme Court majority opinion was that the report of the Governor is open to review by the judiciary.
Reservation of Bills (Art. 200): If bills endanger national interests, the Governor may be the one to reserve them for the President.
Recent Academic Debate
The 2022 article published in the Indian Journal of Constitutional Law claims that discretionary powers have increased due to "political expectations rather than constitutional text" and therefore that more clear limits should be set.
Legislative Powers: Influencing the Law-Making Process
Summoning, Prorogation, and Dissolution
As per Article 174, the Governor is the authority who summons, prorogues, and dissolves the State Legislature. While it is a convention to carry out all the acts on the advice of the council of ministers, the judiciary has stepped in where it has been alleged that the actions are abused.
In Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker, (2016) 8 SCC 1, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Governor is not entitled to call for a session without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers except in a case of a breakdown of the constitution. The Court declared that such action unilaterally taken would “distort the delicate federal structure.”
Assent to Bills
According to Article 200, the Governor is equipped with four courses of actions:
Grant assent
Deny assent
Return the bill (if it is not a money bill)
Send the bill to the President
Governors are increasingly delaying the granting of their assent, which is considered by scholars as equivalent to a pocket veto. The 2021 Economic & Political Weekly article, among other things, pointed to the delays as a factor leading to the weakening of cooperative federalism.
Ordinance Making Powers: Executive Legislation in Emergencies
As per Article 213, the Governor is authorized to issue an ordinance if the Parliament is not in session.
Limits of the Courts
In the case of T. Venkata Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1985) 3 SCC 198, the Court found that an ordinance has the same authority as a law.
But in Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2017) 3 SCC 1, the Supreme Court decided that ordinances should not be used for everyday management or to go around the Legislature.
This is the point where the philosopher John Locke's concept becomes quite significant: "Where the law ends, tyranny begins." Ordinances should be allowed as a measure of last resort - not as a way for the executive to take a shortcut.
Financial Powers: A Gatekeeper of Fiscal Legislation
The initiation of a money bill is not allowed without the Governor's recommendation (Art. 207). This is a method of maintaining financial discipline.
Nevertheless, academicians have debated that if this power is exercised excessively, it may lead to the reduction of the legislature's independence.
Judicial and Constitutional Reflections: The Governor as a Neutral Arbiter?
According to Supreme Court decisions, the Governor is neutral and nonpartisan. The Court in B.P. Singhal v. Union of India, (2010) 6 SCC 331, held that Governors should be nonpolitical and be guided by constitutional principles.
However, the appointment of political executives frequently affects the neutrality of these positions. In 2020, an article in the Journal of Federal Studies stated that the Governor is "a means through which the centre keeps a watch" which is not in line with the idea of true federalism."
Philosophical Object: How Should Governance be Organized?
It was a well-known fact that Aristotle – a political philosopher – had a singular best idea about the state, which is “a state governed by law and not by a man.” So the Governor’s office is, plainly speaking, the utmost medium for implementing and showcasing constitutional supremacy rather than political strategy.
Mahatma Gandhi reckoned that, “There are two sources for the power—one from the dread of the punishment and the other from loving acts.”
It is quite imperative that the Governor’s power be a result of constitutional duty and not political influence.
Summary
The Governor’s office in reality is at a paradoxical junction: albeit a neutral defender of the constitution by design, it is, nonetheless, frequently embroiled in political scandals. Court rulings—from Shamsher Singh to Nabam Rebia—have elucidated that the Governor is neither an inactive tool nor a sovereign of an indefinite character. The difficulty resides in the assurance of constitutional ethics taking precedence over political pressures.
Henceforth, India should consider imposing more lucid legal directions, establishing a disclosure procedure for appointments, and time-limiting the Governor’s decisions in order to be able to extend and deepen federal harmony. In his Arthashastra, Kautilya indicated that, “The king must be diligent and energetic in economic affairs.” Nowadays, a Governor can be called active only when he acts according to the constitution and not politically.
References
Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, (1974) 2 S.C.C. 831.
Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India, (2006) 2 S.C.C. 1.
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 S.C.C. 1.
Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker, (2016) 8 S.C.C. 1.
B.P. Singhal v. Union of India, (2010) 6 S.C.C. 331.
T. Venkata Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1985) 3 S.C.C. 198.
Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2017) 3 S.C.C. 1.
PRS Legislative Research, Governor–State Relations in India (2023).
Governor’s Discretion and Federal Tension, Indian Journal of Constitutional Law (2022).
Delays in Assent to Bills, Economic & Political Weekly (2021).
Federal Balance and the Governor, Journal of Federal Studies (2020).
Related Posts
