BPSC MainsGeneral Studies Paper IIIndian PolityPractice question

Role and Discretionary Powers of the Governor

"When there is a change of Government at the Center, the Governor also changes." In the context of this statement, examine the role of the Governor in India as a link between the Centre and the States. Can he in any way act according to his own discretion?

Examine~250 words4 min readmedium
Attempt it first, timed · optional

Write the answer on paper, as in the exam. Start the timer, keep to the word target.

00:00/ 11 min · 250 words

Done writing? Photograph the sheet and see how it scores against this model answer, with feedback on what to fix.

Upload your answer sheet

How to approach

Introduce the context of gubernatorial turnover and the constitutional mandate affirmed in key judicial pronouncements. Examine the multi-dimensional role of the Governor as a bridge between the Union and the States, followed by an analysis of constitutional and situational discretionary powers alongside judicial limitations. Conclude with major commission recommendations to ensure cooperative federalism.

Model answer

697 words

Introduction

The observation reflects the historical politicization of the Governor's office, where changes of regime at the Union level frequently led to wholesale removals of state Governors. Addressing this practice, the Supreme Court ruled in B.P. Singhal v. Union of India (2010) that a mere change of government at the Centre is not a valid ground for removing a Governor. Serving as a constitutional sentinel, the Governor occupies a dual position as the constitutional head of the State and the linchpin of federal coordination.

The Governor as a Link Between the Centre and the States

The constitutional architecture balances state autonomy with national integrity, making the Governor a vital channel of intergovernmental communication and federal stability.

  • Executive Link: Appointed by the President under Article 155, the Governor acts as an administrative bridge. Under Article 167, the Chief Minister is constitutionally bound to communicate all administrative decisions and legislative proposals of the State to the Governor, who in turn keeps the Union government apprised.
  • Legislative Link: Under Articles 200 and 201, the Governor may reserve state legislation for the consideration of the President, safeguarding national policy coherence, constitutional compatibility, and inter-state interests.
  • Emergency Link: Under Article 356, the Governor provides reports to the President concerning any breakdown of constitutional machinery in the State, serving as the Centre's ultimate oversight mechanism during political or constitutional failure.

Scope of Gubernatorial Discretion

While Article 163(1) establishes that the Governor must ordinarily act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, the Constitution uniquely carves out specific areas where the Governor exercises independent judgment. Notably, Article 163(2) provides that if any question arises whether a matter falls within the Governor's discretion, the decision of the Governor is final and cannot be called into question.

1. Constitutional Discretion

  • Reservation of Bills (Article 200/201): Reserving a bill for the consideration of the President, particularly if it endangers the constitutional position of the High Court or transgresses national policy boundaries.
  • Recommendation of President's Rule (Article 356): Formulating an objective assessment regarding the failure of constitutional governance in the state.
  • Ex-officio Chancellor Functions: Exercising statutory authority as the Chancellor of state universities, independent of the Council of Ministers, as observed during administrative friction regarding Vice-Chancellor appointments and university administration.

2. Situational Discretion

  • Appointment of Chief Minister: Selecting a Chief Minister in a hung assembly where no single party or pre-poll alliance holds an outright majority.
  • Dismissal of Ministry and Dissolution of Assembly: Dismissing a Council of Ministers that has lost legislative confidence but refuses to resign, or dissolving the Legislative Assembly under exceptional circumstances, governed strictly by floor tests as laid down in the S.R. Bommai case (1994).

Judicial Checks on the Misuse of Discretion

The judiciary has progressively limited arbitrary gubernatorial actions to safeguard federalism and parliamentary democracy:

  • Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006): The Supreme Court held the dissolution of the Bihar Legislative Assembly on subjective gubernatorial reports as unconstitutional, affirming that political motives cannot masquerade as constitutional discretion.
  • State of Punjab v. Governor of Punjab (2023): The Court held that a Governor cannot stall governance by questioning the validity of legislative sessions summoned by the Speaker, nor exercise a pocket veto on duly passed legislation.
  • State of Telangana v. Governor (2023): The Court emphasized that the expression 'as soon as possible' in the first proviso to Article 200 contains significant constitutional intent, barring Governors from withholding assent indefinitely.

Institutional Reforms

  • Appointment Process: The Punchhi Commission (2010) recommended replacing unilateral executive appointments with a broad-based collegium comprising the Prime Minister, Home Minister, Vice-President, Lok Sabha Speaker, and the relevant State Chief Minister.
  • Security of Tenure: The Sarkaria Commission (1988) suggested a guaranteed five-year term, with removal restricted to an impeachment procedure mirroring that of High Court judges rather than the arbitrary invocation of the doctrine of pleasure.
  • Time-Bound Action on Bills: Clear institutional norms and timelines should be established through the Inter-State Council to eliminate indefinite delays in granting assent to legislation.

Conclusion

The Governor's office is essential for preserving constitutional equilibrium and federal cohesion in India's diverse democracy. Upholding constitutional morality requires the Governor to rise above partisan considerations and function as an impartial constitutional umpire, cementing cooperative rather than confrontational federalism.

Key facts to remember

case study
B.P. Singhal v. Union of India (2010)

The Supreme Court ruled that a Governor cannot be removed arbitrarily merely because a different political party has come to power at the Centre, holding that the President's pleasure under Article 156(1) is not unrestricted.

case study
Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006)

The Supreme Court declared the dissolution of the Bihar Legislative Assembly by the Governor unconstitutional, holding that mala fide recommendations cannot justify the invocation of Article 356.

scheme
Punchhi Commission Collegium Model (2010)

A reform framework proposing that Governors be appointed through an institutional collegium comprising the Prime Minister, Home Minister, Vice-President, Lok Sabha Speaker, and the concerned Chief Minister.

Frequently asked questions

Can a Governor indefinitely withhold assent to a State Bill?

No. In State of Telangana (2023) and State of Punjab (2023), the Supreme Court clarified that Governors must process bills 'as soon as possible' and cannot wield a pocket veto to frustrate the will of elected legislatures.