Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Governor of a state in India occupies a unique position within the constitutional framework. Appointed by the President, the Governor is intended to be a bridge between the Union and the states, ensuring harmonious relations and upholding the Constitution. However, the Governor’s role has been a subject of debate, particularly concerning the extent of their discretionary powers and their dependence on the President. The question of whether the Governor holds office at the pleasure of the President is firmly rooted in the Constitution, but the interpretation of this provision, especially concerning the exercise of discretionary powers, has evolved through judicial pronouncements. Recent instances of Governors facing criticism for perceived political bias have further intensified the scrutiny of this office.
Dependence on the President's Pleasure
Article 163 of the Constitution explicitly states that the Governor holds office during the pleasure of the President. This provision, along with Article 164, which outlines the appointment process, establishes a clear hierarchy. The President's pleasure isn't arbitrary; it's subject to constitutional constraints and judicial review. Initially, it was believed that the President could remove a Governor at their own will, but this interpretation has been significantly modified by the Supreme Court.
The landmark Shankari Bai v. State of U.P. (1954) case initially upheld the doctrine of implied powers, suggesting the President had broad discretion. However, the Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1970) case broadened the scope of judicial review, limiting the President's power to arbitrarily remove a Governor. Further, the Pramod Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (1994) case solidified the understanding that the President's pleasure is justiciable – meaning it can be challenged in court.
The 'Discretion' of the Governor: Statutory and Judicial Perspective
The Constitution grants the Governor certain discretionary powers, intended to act as a safeguard against hasty or ill-considered actions by the government. These powers are not absolute but are exercised within a framework of constitutional principles and judicial scrutiny.
Statutory Basis of Discretion
- Article 163(1): Empowers the Governor to exercise such powers and functions as vested in them or as required by the Constitution or any law made by Parliament.
- Article 163(2): Specifies that the Governor can, when the Assembly is dissolved, assume executive authority.
- Article 163(3): Deals with the power of the Governor to summon, adjourn, and dissolve the state legislative assembly.
- The Constitution (Article 163) (Amendment) Act, 2015: Clarified that the Governor’s discretionary powers are to be exercised in accordance with the Constitution.
The Governor's discretionary powers traditionally included:
- Appointing the Chief Minister when no party has a clear majority.
- Reserving bills for the President’s assent (Article 200).
- Acting as the head of the state police force.
- Promulgating ordinances.
Judicial Interpretation and Limitations on Discretion
The Supreme Court has significantly curtailed the scope of the Governor's discretionary powers. The Bommai v. Union of India (1994) case is pivotal. It held that the Governor's actions must be based on objective circumstances and cannot be arbitrary or whimsical. The Court emphasized that the Governor must act according to the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in specific circumstances like a situation of breakdown of constitutional machinery.
Furthermore, the S.R. Bommai case established that the power to summon or dissolve the Assembly is not absolute and is subject to judicial review. The Governor cannot act on their own subjective satisfaction; their decisions must be reasonable and justifiable. The Shyam Narayan Chourasia v. State of M.P. (2018) case reinforced that the Governor cannot act independently of the Council of Ministers.
The concept of “objective circumstances” is crucial. It means the Governor’s actions must be based on verifiable facts and not on personal preferences or political considerations. For example, in situations where a government loses majority support, the Governor must consider evidence like floor tests and resignations before acting.
Recent Developments and Concerns
Recent instances, such as the actions of Governors in Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Rajasthan, have raised concerns about the misuse of discretionary powers and potential political interference. These incidents have fueled demands for reforms to the Governor's office, including fixed tenures and mechanisms to ensure greater accountability. The 22nd Law Commission report has also recommended reforms related to the Governor’s office.
| Case Name | Year | Key Holding |
|---|---|---|
| Shankari Bai v. State of U.P. | 1954 | Initially upheld the doctrine of implied powers |
| Golaknath v. State of Punjab | 1970 | Broadened scope of judicial review, limiting President’s power |
| Pramod Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra | 1994 | President’s pleasure is justiciable |
| S.R. Bommai v. Union of India | 1994 | Governor's actions must be based on objective circumstances |
| Shyam Narayan Chourasia v. State of M.P. | 2018 | Governor cannot act independently of Council of Ministers |
Conclusion
In conclusion, while the Governor's office is dependent on the President's pleasure, this dependence is now subject to judicial scrutiny. The ‘discretion’ of the Governor is not unfettered; it's a carefully circumscribed power intended to be exercised in accordance with the Constitution and in the interests of good governance. Recent controversies highlight the need for greater clarity and accountability in the exercise of these powers. Reforms aimed at ensuring the Governor acts as a neutral and impartial custodian of the Constitution are essential for preserving the integrity of India's federal structure.
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.