Governor's Role and Controversies: Discretionary Powers and Constitutional Conventions
Articles 153 to 167 of the Constitution deal with the Governor. The Governor acts as the agent of the Centre in States, exercising executive, legislative, financial, and judicial functions. Discretionary powers are exceptional but significant: they cover government formation in hung assemblies, reservation of Bills, imposition of President's Rule, and special responsibilities. Repeated misuse of these powers has triggered judicial interventions and demands for reform. Key landmarks include the Sarkaria Commission (1988), Punchhi Commission (2010), and the S.R. Bommai case (1994).
📌 Revision Pointers
Constitutional basis: Articles 153-167 (Governor), Article 163 (Council of Ministers), Article 200 (assent to Bills), Article 356 (President's Rule).
Appointment: By President under Art. 155; holds office "during pleasure of President" (Art. 156).
Discretionary powers: Appointment of CM in hung assembly, floor test, dissolution of assembly, reservation of Bills, President's Rule report.
General rule: Governor acts on aid and advice of CoM (Art. 163). Discretion is exception, not rule.
Bommai case (1994): Floor test in assembly — not Governor's subjective satisfaction — is the test of majority. President's Rule subject to judicial review.
Sarkaria Commission: Governor should be eminent person, not active political figure; should ordinarily invite leader with widest support for government formation.
Punchhi Commission: Recommended time limits for governor to give assent to Bills; questioned long delays.
Recent controversies: Maharashtra (2019 — 80-hour government), Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Punjab (delay in assent), West Bengal (constitutional standoffs).
Art. 200 — Governor may: assent, withhold assent, return Bill (but NOT Money Bills), or reserve for President's consideration.
Introduction
The Governor is the constitutional head of a State in India, analogous to the President at the Union level. Appointed by the President under Article 155, the Governor is expected to be a ceremonial figurehead who acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. However, the Governor also possesses certain discretionary powers — areas where the Governor can act independently — that have repeatedly generated controversy, particularly when the Centre and State are governed by different political parties. The Office of the Governor thus sits at the intersection of constitutional law, federal convention, and political practice.
4.1 Constitutional Position of the Governor
The Governor is appointed by the President of India and holds office at the pleasure of the President (Art. 156). There is no direct election for the Governor. The same person may be appointed as Governor of two or more States (Art. 153 proviso). The Governor must be a citizen of India, above 35 years of age, and must not be a member of the legislature or hold any office of profit.
The Governor is not an employee of the Union Government but is a constitutional functionary. Yet, in practice, the Governor often functions as the Centre's agent in the State, particularly in political crises.
4.2 Executive Powers and the Discretionary Domain
Under Article 163, the Governor exercises his functions with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except where the Constitution requires the Governor to act at his discretion. Key areas where discretion has been recognised include:
Appointment of Chief Minister when no party commands a clear majority (hung assembly).
Dismissal of the Council of Ministers that has lost majority but refuses to resign.
Dissolution of the State Legislative Assembly.
Sending a report for imposition of President's Rule under Art. 356.
Special responsibilities assigned under certain constitutional provisions (e.g., in certain tribal areas).
4.3 Legislative Powers and Bill Assent
Under Article 200, when a Bill is passed by the State Legislature, the Governor may:
Give assent to the Bill.
Withhold assent (effectively a veto, rarely used).
Return the Bill to the Legislature for reconsideration (cannot be done for Money Bills).
Reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President.
The power to reserve Bills for the President's consideration has become controversial. Governors have used this power with significant delays or without clear constitutional justification, particularly when state governments are not aligned with the Centre. The Supreme Court in recent judgments has held that Governors cannot sit on Bills indefinitely and must act within reasonable time.
4.4 Key Controversies
Post-election government formation: The Governor's role in inviting parties to form government in hung assemblies has repeatedly generated controversy. Governors have been accused of favouring parties aligned with the Centre.
Karnataka (2018): Governor invited the single-largest party to form the government and gave it 15 days to prove majority — later reduced by Supreme Court to 24 hours.
Maharashtra (2019): Governor administered oath to Fadnavis-Pawar government at dawn without verified majority; government collapsed in 80 hours.
Goa, Manipur (2017): Governor invited BJP (not the largest party) to form government citing post-poll alliance support.
Delay in assent to Bills: Several Opposition-ruled states (Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Telangana) have faced Governors sitting on Bills for months or years without giving assent or returning them. The Supreme Court (2023) held that Governors must act within reasonable time and cannot indefinitely withhold assent.
Recommendation for President's Rule: Governors have faced charges of recommending President's Rule in states governed by opposition parties on flimsy grounds — a practice the Bommai judgment sought to check.
4.5 Judicial Interventions
The Supreme Court has progressively curtailed arbitrary exercise of gubernatorial discretion:
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): Floor test in assembly is the only valid test for majority; President's Rule under Art. 356 is subject to judicial review; dismissal of State Government cannot be made arbitrarily.
Nabam Rebia case (2016): Speaker cannot summon emergency session while notice for disqualification of Speaker is pending. Reinforced that Governor cannot unilaterally summon assembly.
Supreme Court (2023, Punjab Governor case): Governor cannot withhold assent indefinitely; must either give assent or return Bill within a reasonable period. Governor cannot refuse to summon special session of assembly if the state cabinet advises it.
4.6 Commission Recommendations
Sarkaria Commission (1988) recommended:
Governor should be an eminent person not actively involved in politics.
Convention: Governor should ordinarily invite the leader with the widest support for government formation.
Governor should give ample opportunity before recommending President's Rule.
Punchhi Commission (2010) recommended:
Governor should follow constitutional conventions strictly in government formation.
Fixed timelines for Governors to act on Bills.
Impeachment of Governors by state legislature to be considered for accountability.
Important Concepts
Pleasure doctrine: Governor holds office "at the pleasure of the President," meaning the President (i.e., the Union Cabinet) can remove the Governor at any time. This makes the Governor vulnerable to political pressure from the Centre.
Constitutional conventions: Many aspects of the Governor's functioning are not written law but understood conventions — such as always following cabinet advice in non-discretionary matters. These conventions are as important as written provisions.
Current Relevance
The Governor's Office has become one of the most contested political institutions in India's federal democracy. With several states governed by parties in opposition to the Centre, Governors' actions in withholding assent, refusing to summon assemblies, and making partisan appointments have been widely criticised. The Supreme Court's active intervention in defining the limits of gubernatorial power reflects the judiciary's growing role in protecting federalism. Reforms such as fixed tenure, transparent appointment criteria, and mandatory timelines for assent are under active public debate.
💭 Conclusion
The Governor is constitutionally positioned as a neutral, non-partisan constitutional head of the State. However, the dual nature of the office — simultaneously a State's constitutional head and the Centre's representative — creates inherent tensions in a multi-party federal democracy. Judicial activism has progressively clarified the limits of discretionary power. The health of Indian federalism depends significantly on Governors discharging their constitutional obligations with impartiality, and on the Centre restraining the impulse to use the office as a political tool.