Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The office of the Governor, as enshrined in Articles 155-167 of the Constitution, occupies a pivotal position in the Indian federal structure. While primarily acting as the representative of the Union Government in the state, the Governor enjoys certain discretionary powers, allowing independent judgment in specific situations. These powers, though essential for maintaining stability and responding to unforeseen circumstances, are not absolute. The statement highlights the inherent limitation on the Governor’s authority – the President’s oversight and the ultimate power of removal. This answer will critically examine this assertion, analyzing the scope of discretionary powers, instances of their misuse, and the constitutional mechanisms available to the President.
Understanding Discretionary Powers of the Governor
The Constitution doesn’t explicitly define ‘discretionary powers’ but implies them through various articles. These powers arise in situations where the Constitution doesn’t provide a specific course of action, or where the Governor is required to exercise judgment. Key areas include:
- Article 163: Allows the Governor to act in his/her discretion on certain matters.
- Government Formation: After elections, when no party secures a clear majority, the Governor plays a crucial role in inviting the leader most likely to command the confidence of the House.
- Dissolution of the Legislative Assembly: Under Article 175, the Governor can dissolve the Assembly, but this power is subject to judicial review (S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, 1994).
- Reservation of Bills: The Governor can reserve a bill passed by the state legislature for the President’s assent (Article 200).
- Appointment of Chief Minister: In cases of a hung assembly or the death/resignation of the CM, the Governor appoints the new CM.
Potential for Misuse and Concerns
The inherent ambiguity in these discretionary powers makes them susceptible to misuse, often driven by political considerations. Several instances have raised concerns:
- Karnataka (2018): The Governor’s decision to invite B.S. Yeddyurappa to form the government despite lacking a clear majority was challenged in court and ultimately overturned.
- Maharashtra (2019): The Governor’s actions in inviting Devendra Fadnavis to form a government, followed by its swift collapse, were widely criticized as being politically motivated.
- West Bengal (Recent): Frequent clashes between the Governor and the state government over various issues, including appointments to universities, highlight the potential for friction and misuse of powers.
Such instances demonstrate how the Governor’s discretion can be influenced by the ruling party at the Centre, potentially undermining the federal spirit of the Constitution.
Presidential Checks and the Power of Removal
The statement rightly points out that the Governor’s authority is not unrestrained. The President acts as a crucial check on the Governor’s actions. The mechanisms include:
- Article 163(2): Stipulates that the Governor must exercise powers “subject to the Constitution.” This implies judicial review and Presidential oversight.
- Reporting to the President: The Governor is required to keep the President informed of the state’s administration. This allows the President to monitor the Governor’s actions.
- Withholding Assent to Bills: The President can withhold assent to bills reserved by the Governor, effectively vetoing them.
- Seeking Clarification: The President can seek clarification from the Governor regarding the exercise of discretionary powers.
- Removal (Article 156(1)): The President can remove the Governor at any time, and such removal does not require any impeachment process. This is the ultimate check on the Governor’s authority.
The S.R. Bommai case (1994) established that the President’s power to dismiss a state government (and by extension, influence the Governor’s actions) is subject to judicial review. The Supreme Court emphasized that such power should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances and not arbitrarily.
Balancing Discretion and Accountability
While the President possesses significant powers to check the Governor, the exercise of these powers itself can be subject to political considerations. A purely mechanical approach to oversight could stifle the Governor’s ability to act decisively in times of crisis. Therefore, a delicate balance is required – ensuring accountability while preserving the Governor’s capacity to respond to unforeseen circumstances.
Conclusion
The statement that the Governor’s discretionary powers are not unrestrained and are subject to Presidential check is demonstrably true. The Constitution provides robust mechanisms for the President to oversee the Governor’s actions and, if necessary, remove them. However, the effectiveness of these checks depends on the political will of the ruling government at the Centre and the independence of the judiciary. Strengthening the conventions surrounding the office of the Governor, promoting greater transparency in decision-making, and fostering a spirit of cooperative federalism are crucial for ensuring that these powers are exercised responsibly and in accordance with the Constitution’s intent.
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.