Office of Governor

Constitutional Provisions

• Article 153  to Article 162 of Part VI of the Indian Constitution deals with the office of the Governor. 
• Article 153 mandates that there shall be a Governor for each State. It also states that multiple states can have one person as the Governor (7th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1956). 
• He is part of the federal system and has the dual role of being the constitutional head of the state as well as being the representative of the Central Government. 
• However, the Supreme Court clarified that it is not an employment under the control of or subordinate to the Central government but an independent constitutional office.

Eligibility

• The following Eligibility criteria of the governor is mentioned in Article 157 and 158
  • He must be a citizen of India. 
  • He must be at least 35 years of age.
  • He must not be a member of either house of the parliament or house of the state legislature. 
  • He must not hold any office of profit.

• The Governor shall hold office during the pleasure of the President. Normally, he is given a term of 5 years. However, he can
  • Resign from the office by writing to the President
  • Be dismissed by the President on the advice of the Union Council of Ministers.
• There should be a valid reason for his removal. If unconstitutional acts or malafide by the Governors are upheld by courts, it is the duty of the President to remove him.

Major Issues

The Process of Appointment : 

• Since Governor is appointed by the President at the aid and advice of Central government, the ruling party at the centre has on multiple occasions abused this power to make political appointments. 
• For Eg. Politicians and former bureaucrats identifying with a particular political ideology have been appointed. Recently, the Governor of Rajasthan allegedly supported the ruling party and is charged with violation of the model code of conduct.

Abuse of Governor’s discretionary powers

• Governor has discretionary powers in appointing the chief minister in the event of a hung assembly, dismissing a government if loses the majority, advising the president’s rule etc. These powers have also been misused often, in favour of political parties. 
• Recent examples are Goa and Karnataka, where two logic was used by the governors.
• Article 356 (Imposition of President’s Rule) has been frequently misused.

A Nominal head

• Since Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the council of ministers, his role is limited. 
• In some states, he has no public function to perform except making the fortnightly report to the President.

Arbitrary Removal 

The removal of governors without justified reasons has also become a major issue. The successive Union governments in India have removed governors appointed by previous governments.

Read Also Justice Verma Committee (JVC) recommendation

Important Court Judgements regarding Office of Governor

S.R. Bommai Vs Union of India (1994)

• The Judgements set limits on Governor’s powers in dismissing a state government under Article 356.
• In this case, the Supreme Court, while reinstating the then suspended governments of Arunachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand, held that the breakdown of constitutional machinery does not mean a mere difficulty in carrying out governance in a State but an impossibility. 
• It said that Governor’s report, which is the basis for President’s satisfaction, can be analysed by the judiciary for arbitrariness.

BP Singhal Vs Union of India (2010)

• In this case, a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court interpreted the provisions for removal of governors and laid down some binding principles. 
• The Supreme Court held that
  • The President, in effect the central government, has the power to remove a Governor at any time without giving him or her any reason, and without granting an opportunity to be heard.
  • However, this power cannot be exercised in an arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner.  The power of removing Governors should only be exercised in rare and exceptional circumstances for valid and compelling reasons.
  • The mere reason that a Governor is at variance with the policies and ideologies of the central government, or that the central government has lost confidence in him or her, is not sufficient to remove a Governor.  Thus, a change in central government cannot be a ground for removal of Governors, or to appoint more favourable persons to this post.
  • A decision to remove a Governor can be challenged in a court of law. If a prima facie case of arbitrariness or bad faith on the part of the central government is established, the court can require the central government to produce the materials on the basis of which the decision was made in order to verify the presence of compelling reasons.

Nabam Rebia Judgment (Arunachal Pradesh) (2016)

• • The Supreme court limited the Governor’s discretionary powers (Article 163) such that it should not be arbitrary or fanciful but dictated by reason, actuated by good faith and tempered by caution.
  • Governor is not an elected representative, but only an executive nominee whose powers flow from the aid and advice of the Cabinet.
  • Using discretionary powers to summon or dissolve Assembly sessions without the aid and advice of the Chief Minister and his Cabinet is unconstitutional.

Major Recommendations made by committees

Administrative Reforms Commission (1968)

• It recommended that the Governor should exercise his own Judgement with regard to the recommendation of President’s Rule and must not be subjective.
• It also said that the Governor should responsibly act under the direction of the Union Government, in states under the operation of President’s rule.

Rajamannar Committee (1971)

• It emphasised that the governor of the state should not consider himself as an agent of the centre but play his role as the constitutional head of the State, apart from recommending deletion of Articles 356 and 357 from the constitution of India.

Sarkaria Commission (1988)

• It recommended that the Governor should be an eminent person, without intense political affiliations, an outsider, and not a member of the ruling party. Also, the chief minister should have a say in the appointment of the governor.
• It also recommended that Governors must not be removed before completion of their five-year tenure, except in rare and compelling circumstances.
• While appointing Chief ministers the following principles to be followed:
• Appoint the Leader of the majority party or coalition,
• Seek the vote of confidence in the assembly within 30 days of his appointment as the Chief Minister.
• As long as the council of ministry possess a majority in the assembly the governor cannot use his discretionary powers.

Venkatachaliah Commission (2002)

• It recommended the formation of a committee comprising the prime minister, the home minister, the speaker of the Lok Sabha and the chief minister of the concerned state for appointing the governor.
• It also recommended that the chief minister of the state be consulted, if the governor is to be removed before completion of the term.

Punchhi Commission (2010)

• It recommended for the deletion of the phrase “during the pleasure of the President” from the constitution. 
• Also, the Governor should be removed only by a resolution of the state legislature.

Abolishing the office of Governor: an Evaluation

Significance of the office of Governor

• It offers a continuation such that there is no vacuum of power in the state.
• The role of governor is important in the formation of a government during a hung assembly or at the demise of a chief minister.
• The governor acts as a bridge between the union and states on various issues.
• Their special role in some states like in North East that have autonomous regions and the underdeveloped area.

Debate on the office of Governor

• It could be argued that the office of Governor is a colonial legacy and undermines the essence of federalism in the Indian Polity. 
• Over the years, the position has got highly politicised and has become a platform for abuse and misuse of powers to pursue undemocratic means to dismiss state governments and attain extraordinary powers by the Central Government as seen in the recent Karnataka assembly episode.
• Also, since the office is not accountable and has a limited role in state government and administration, it is considered a burden on the public exchequer.
• However, Governor is considered to be a vital link between the Union and the States and a necessary element for the smooth functioning of democracy. Maintenance of national interests, integrity and internal security advocates central supervision for which the governor is required.

Way Forward

• The Governor must act judiciously and efficiently with the spirit of non-partisanship for the smooth conduct of democracy in the states.
• Sufficient checks and balances should be provided in the constitution against the abuse of powers of the office of Governor by scrutinizing the recommendations of various commissions and court judgements. 
• For example, constitutionally fixing the tenure of the governor, laying down a procedure for his appointment and renewal with the considerable participation of the state government etc.