Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Governor, as a representative of the Union government in the states, occupies a unique position in the Indian federal structure. Article 155 of the Constitution provides for the office of the Governor. While the Constitution outlines specific duties, it also grants the Governor discretionary powers, intended to be exercised when no specific provision exists or when a situation arises that requires a decision based on prudence. These powers, though seemingly necessary for maintaining stability and responding to unforeseen circumstances, have been a source of debate due to their potential for partisan application and undermining democratic principles. A critical analysis necessitates examining the scope, limitations, and practical implications of these discretionary powers.
Understanding Discretionary Powers
Discretionary powers are those powers which are not explicitly defined in the Constitution but are implied from the text and the nature of the office. They are meant to be exercised by the Governor based on their judgment and understanding of the situation. These powers are not absolute and are subject to judicial review.
Key Discretionary Powers and their Analysis
1. Appointment of Chief Minister
When no party secures a clear majority in the state assembly elections, the Governor exercises discretion in appointing the Chief Minister. The Governor typically invites the leader of the party that commands the largest number of seats. However, if no party has a clear majority, the Governor may consider factors like the possibility of forming a coalition, the support of independent candidates, and the stability of the government. This power has been contentious, with accusations of bias in several instances. The S.R. Bommai case (1994) established that the Governor’s decision is subject to judicial review and must be based on objective criteria.
2. Reservation of Bills for Presidential Assent
Article 200 allows the Governor to reserve a bill passed by the state legislature for the President’s consideration. This power is typically used when a bill appears to be detrimental to the interests of the Union or relates to matters within the Union List. While intended to safeguard the federal balance, this power can be misused to delay or obstruct state legislation. The extent of discretion is limited, as the President is not bound to accept the Governor’s recommendation.
3. Dissolution of the State Legislative Assembly
Perhaps the most controversial discretionary power is the Governor’s ability to dissolve the state legislative assembly. This power is usually exercised when the government loses its majority or is unable to carry on business. However, the Governor’s decision to dissolve the assembly can be challenged if it is deemed to be arbitrary or motivated by political considerations. The Nabam Rebia case (2016) significantly curtailed the Governor’s power to dissolve the assembly, emphasizing the need for objective evidence of a loss of confidence.
4. Exercise of Pardoning Power (Article 161)
The Governor has the power to grant pardons, reprieves, remissions, and commutations of sentences for offences against state laws. This power is similar to the President’s pardoning power but applies to state laws. While this is a constitutional prerogative, its exercise can be subject to judicial review if it violates fundamental rights or is based on extraneous considerations.
Judicial Scrutiny and Limitations
The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that the Governor is not an agent of the Centre but a constitutional head of the state. The court has laid down guidelines to ensure that the Governor’s discretionary powers are exercised within the bounds of the Constitution. The key principles established by the judiciary include:
- Objectivity: Decisions must be based on objective material and not on political considerations.
- Fairness: All parties concerned must be given a fair opportunity to present their case.
- Judicial Reviewability: The Governor’s actions are subject to judicial review.
Recent Controversies
Recent instances, such as the formation of governments in states like Karnataka (2018) and Maharashtra (2019), have highlighted the potential for misuse of the Governor’s discretionary powers. These cases raised concerns about the Governor’s impartiality and adherence to constitutional norms, leading to accusations of acting as an agent of the central government.
| Power | Constitutional Article | Potential for Misuse | Judicial Safeguards |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appointment of CM | 164 | Partisan bias, favoring a particular party | S.R. Bommai case – objective criteria required |
| Reservation of Bills | 200 | Delaying/obstructing state legislation | President not bound by Governor’s recommendation |
| Dissolution of Assembly | 175 | Arbitrary dissolution, undermining democracy | Nabam Rebia case – evidence of loss of confidence needed |
| Pardoning Power | 161 | Violation of fundamental rights, extraneous considerations | Subject to judicial review |
Conclusion
The discretionary powers of the Governor are a necessary component of the Indian constitutional framework, providing flexibility in unforeseen circumstances. However, their potential for misuse necessitates careful exercise and robust judicial oversight. The Supreme Court’s interventions have established important safeguards, but the onus remains on the Governor to act impartially and in accordance with constitutional principles. Strengthening the conventions surrounding the office and promoting greater transparency in the exercise of these powers are crucial for maintaining the integrity of the federal structure and upholding democratic values.
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.