Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The office of the Governor, as enshrined in the Constitution of India (Articles 155-167), occupies a unique position, acting as a vital link between the Union and the State. While appointed by the President, the Governor holds office 'during the pleasure of the President' (Article 156). However, this seemingly straightforward provision is complicated by the lack of clearly defined 'compelling reasons' required for removal, creating a 'fuzzy area' between the President’s discretionary power and the need for justifiable action. Recent instances of Governor-State relations, particularly in states with non-BJP governments, have brought this ambiguity into sharp focus, necessitating a detailed examination of the constitutional framework and its practical application.
Understanding the Constitutional Framework
Article 156 of the Constitution outlines the Governor’s tenure and removal. It states the Governor holds office during the pleasure of the President, implying the President can remove a Governor at any time. However, this power isn’t absolute. The Sarkaria Commission (1988) emphasized that the President should exercise this power only in exceptional circumstances, based on ‘compelling reasons’ such as violation of the Constitution, persistent disregard of advice of the Council of Ministers, or physical or mental incapacity. The Commission aimed to insulate the Governor from arbitrary removal and political vendettas.
The ‘Fuzzy Area’ – Discretion vs. Compelling Reasons
The ambiguity arises from the lack of a precise definition of ‘compelling reasons’. This allows for subjective interpretation, leading to potential misuse of power. The President, acting on the advice of the Union Government, can effectively remove a Governor without explicitly stating a reason that would withstand judicial scrutiny. This creates a situation where the Governor’s security of tenure is contingent on maintaining political alignment with the Centre. The ‘withdrawal of pleasure’ can be seen as a broader category encompassing both legitimate reasons and politically motivated actions.
Recent Examples and Controversies
- Maharashtra (2019): The abrupt transfer of Governor C. Vidyasagar Rao during the formation of a coalition government after the 2019 Assembly elections raised questions about the Centre’s role in influencing the political situation. Critics argued the transfer was aimed at facilitating the formation of a BJP-led government.
- Karnataka (2018): The appointment of Vajubhai Vala as Governor during the hung assembly situation and his subsequent decision to invite B.S. Yeddyurappa to form the government, despite lacking a clear majority, was heavily criticized as being politically motivated.
- West Bengal (2022-2023): The frequent clashes between Governor La Ganesan (and later C.V. Ananda Bose) and the Mamata Banerjee government, coupled with the Governor’s active involvement in state affairs, highlighted the potential for conflict and the misuse of gubernatorial powers. The Governor’s actions were often seen as representing the interests of the central government.
- Tamil Nadu (2023): The Governor R.N. Ravi’s delaying tactics in giving assent to bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, and his public statements critical of the state government, sparked a constitutional crisis and accusations of acting against the spirit of federalism.
Judicial Interpretations and Safeguards
While the judiciary has generally refrained from interfering in the President’s power to remove a Governor, it has emphasized the need for adherence to constitutional principles. The Supreme Court, in several cases, has underscored the importance of the Governor acting on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in exceptional circumstances. However, defining these ‘exceptional circumstances’ remains a challenge. The absence of a robust legal framework to define ‘compelling reasons’ leaves the Governor vulnerable to political pressure.
Comparative Analysis – Governor vs. State Legislatures
| Feature | Governor | State Legislature |
|---|---|---|
| Removal Process | President’s pleasure (Article 156) – ‘Compelling reasons’ vaguely defined. | Impeachment process (Article 169) – Requires a specific majority and grounds. |
| Accountability | Primarily to the President and, indirectly, to the Parliament. | To the electorate and, through them, to the Constitution. |
| Discretionary Powers | Significant discretionary powers, subject to judicial review. | Limited discretionary powers, primarily procedural. |
Potential Reforms
To address the ambiguity and strengthen the constitutional position of the Governor, several reforms have been suggested:
- Codifying ‘Compelling Reasons’: Defining ‘compelling reasons’ through a constitutional amendment or a comprehensive law.
- National Commission on Governors: Establishing a permanent National Commission on Governors to oversee appointments and ensure adherence to constitutional norms.
- Strengthening the Sarkaria Commission Recommendations: Giving greater weight to the Sarkaria Commission’s recommendations on gubernatorial conduct and removal.
Conclusion
The gubernatorial position remains precariously balanced between the President’s prerogative and the need for a politically neutral and constitutionally sound office. The lack of clarity surrounding ‘compelling reasons’ for removal continues to fuel controversies and undermine the federal structure. While judicial review provides some safeguards, a more proactive approach – through legislative reforms and institutional mechanisms – is crucial to ensure the Governor functions as a true representative of the Union, upholding the spirit of cooperative federalism and safeguarding the constitutional principles of governance.
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.