Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Governor, as envisioned by the Constitution of India, is primarily a constitutional head – a representative of the Union government in the state. Article 155 of the Constitution provides for the appointment of a Governor. In normal circumstances, the Governor acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, functioning as a nominal executive. However, the Indian Constitution provides for situations where the established political order is disrupted, leading to a constitutional crisis. In such times, the Governor transcends the role of a mere figurehead and assumes a more proactive, and potentially powerful, executive function, becoming instrumental in safeguarding the constitutional framework.
The Governor as a Constitutional Executive in Normal Times
Under normal conditions, the Governor’s powers are largely ceremonial. These include:
- Appointment of the Chief Minister: Article 164 dictates the Governor appoints the Chief Minister, usually the leader of the party commanding a majority in the Legislative Assembly.
- Summoning and Proroguing the Legislature: The Governor summons, prorogues, and dissolves the State Legislature (Article 174).
- Assent to Bills: Bills passed by the State Legislature require the Governor’s assent to become law (Article 200). The Governor can return a bill for reconsideration, but must assent if passed again.
- Exercise of Veto Power: While limited, the Governor can withhold assent to bills, though this is rarely exercised.
In essence, the Governor operates as a conduit between the state government and the central government, ensuring adherence to constitutional norms.
Constitutional Crisis and Expansion of Governor’s Powers
A ‘constitutional crisis’ arises when there is a breakdown of the constitutional machinery or a situation where the existing political arrangement cannot function effectively. This can manifest in several ways:
- No-Confidence Motion & Loss of Majority: When a government loses the confidence of the legislature.
- Hung Assembly: When no party secures a clear majority in elections.
- Death or Resignation of the Chief Minister: Leading to a vacancy in the highest executive office.
- Breakdown of Law and Order: Severe disturbances that render normal governance impossible.
In these scenarios, the Governor’s discretionary powers come into play. Article 163 grants the Governor the power to act in his discretion, but this discretion is not unfettered and must be exercised within the bounds of the Constitution. The key powers exercised during a crisis include:
- Inviting Formation of Government: In a hung assembly, the Governor must exercise judgment in inviting the leader most likely to secure a majority. The landmark S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) case clarified that the Governor’s decision is subject to judicial review.
- Imposing President’s Rule (Article 356): If no party can form a government or if the government in power loses majority and refuses to resign, the Governor can recommend President’s Rule, suspending the state government and bringing the state under direct central control.
- Acting as an Interim Government: The Governor can temporarily administer the state until a new government is formed.
- Reporting to the Centre: The Governor is obligated to report the situation to the central government, providing crucial information for decision-making.
Examples of Governor’s Role During Constitutional Crises
Several instances demonstrate the Governor’s expanded role during crises:
- Karnataka (2018): The Governor Vajubhai Vala’s decision to invite B.S. Yeddyurappa to form the government despite lacking a clear majority was heavily criticized and ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court. This case highlighted the potential for misuse of discretionary powers.
- Maharashtra (2019): The Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari’s actions in inviting Devendra Fadnavis to form a government, followed by its swift collapse, sparked a constitutional debate about the Governor’s neutrality and adherence to democratic principles.
- Jammu and Kashmir (2018): Governor Satya Pal Malik dissolved the state assembly after claims of horse-trading, a controversial decision that was justified on grounds of preventing instability.
Limitations and Concerns
While the Governor’s role expands during a crisis, it is not without limitations. The S.R. Bommai case established that the exercise of Article 356 is subject to judicial review, preventing arbitrary use of power. However, concerns remain regarding:
- Political Bias: The Governor is often a political appointee, raising questions about their impartiality.
- Lack of Clear Guidelines: The Constitution does not provide exhaustive guidelines for exercising discretionary powers, leaving room for interpretation and potential misuse.
- Central Government’s Influence: The Governor acts as the representative of the central government, potentially leading to conflicts of interest.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Governor’s role is fundamentally that of a constitutional executive, but this role dynamically shifts during constitutional crises. The Governor’s discretionary powers, while essential for maintaining stability, must be exercised with utmost caution, objectivity, and adherence to constitutional principles. The judiciary’s role in reviewing these actions is crucial in safeguarding democratic norms and preventing the abuse of power. A clear framework of guidelines and a commitment to non-partisanship are vital to ensure the Governor effectively navigates these challenging situations.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.