Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Office of the Governor, established by the Constitution of India (Articles 155-167), is a vestige of the British Raj, intended to be a symbolic head and a crucial link between the Union and the State. However, its role has been a subject of debate, particularly in the context of increasingly frequent coalition governments at the state level. The Governor’s discretionary powers, while intended to ensure smooth governance during times of political uncertainty, have often been criticized as being susceptible to partisan manipulation, potentially destabilizing state governments and undermining federal principles. The question of whether to dispense with this office gains prominence when considering the inherent instability and complexities of coalition politics.
Constitutional Provisions & Role of the Governor
The Governor is appointed by the President (Article 155) and holds office during the pleasure of the President (Article 156). Key functions include:
- Appointment of the Chief Minister: Article 164 – The Governor appoints the CM who commands the majority in the Assembly.
- Dissolution of the Assembly: Article 174 – Governor can dissolve the assembly on the advice of the CM, or in certain circumstances, at their discretion.
- Reservation of Bills: Article 200 – Governor can reserve bills passed by the state legislature for the President’s assent.
- Exercise of Discretionary Powers: This is the most contentious area, particularly in hung assemblies or during periods of political instability.
Challenges in Coalition Governments
Coalition governments, by their very nature, are prone to instability. The Governor’s role becomes particularly sensitive in such scenarios:
- Government Formation: In a hung assembly, the Governor’s decision on whom to invite to form the government can be crucial and potentially biased. The 2017 Karnataka assembly elections and the subsequent government formation process exemplify this.
- Horse-Trading & Defection: The Governor’s inaction or delayed action in addressing instances of horse-trading or defection can exacerbate instability.
- Imposition of President’s Rule: Article 356 – The Governor recommends President’s Rule (suspension of state government) to the President. This power, if misused, can undermine democratic principles. The imposition of President’s Rule in states like Uttarakhand (2016) has been heavily criticized.
- Neutrality Concerns: The Governor, often a political appointee, may not always remain neutral, leading to accusations of acting on behalf of the central government.
Arguments for Dispensing with the Office
Several arguments support the abolition of the Governor’s office:
- Redundancy: Critics argue the office is largely ceremonial and adds to the cost of governance.
- Potential for Misuse: The discretionary powers are prone to abuse, especially by Governors aligned with the ruling party at the Centre.
- Erosion of Federalism: The Governor’s role can be seen as an intrusion by the Centre into state affairs.
- Political Appointments: The appointment of Governors based on political considerations rather than merit raises concerns about impartiality.
Arguments Against Dispensing with the Office & Alternatives
However, abolishing the office isn’t without its drawbacks:
- Constitutional Head: The state needs a constitutional head to perform certain functions, such as giving assent to bills.
- Link with the Centre: The Governor serves as a vital link between the state and the Centre, facilitating communication and coordination.
- Alternatives to Abolition: Instead of abolition, reforms can be implemented:
- National Commission on Governor’s Appointment: A non-partisan body to recommend Governor appointments.
- Codification of Discretionary Powers: Clearly defining the scope and limitations of the Governor’s discretionary powers.
- Time-Bound Decision Making: Establishing timelines for the Governor to act on crucial matters like government formation.
The Sarkaria Commission (1988) and the Punchhi Commission (2010) have both recommended reforms to the Governor’s office, emphasizing neutrality and adherence to constitutional conventions. However, many of these recommendations remain unimplemented.
Conclusion
While the concerns surrounding the Governor’s office, particularly its potential for misuse in coalition governments, are legitimate, outright abolition may not be the most pragmatic solution. The office fulfills certain constitutional functions and serves as a crucial link between the state and the Centre. Instead, comprehensive reforms focusing on ensuring neutrality, codifying discretionary powers, and establishing a transparent appointment process are more desirable. Strengthening the constitutional conventions governing the office and promoting a spirit of cooperative federalism are essential to address the challenges posed by coalition politics and safeguard the integrity of India’s democratic framework.
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.