Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The office of the Governor, as enshrined in the Constitution of India (Articles 155-167), is a pivotal one, acting as a bridge between the Union and the State. While primarily a constitutional head, the Governor exercises significant discretionary powers, particularly during periods of political uncertainty. In the contemporary Indian political landscape, characterized by frequent coalition governments and the increasing rarity of single-party majorities in state legislatures, the role of the Governor has become increasingly challenging. The absence of a clear mandate necessitates careful navigation of constitutional provisions and political realities, making the Governor’s decisions subject to intense scrutiny and potential accusations of bias.
The Constitutional Position of the Governor
The Governor is appointed by the President (Article 155) and holds office during the pleasure of the President. Their functions are largely ceremonial, but they possess crucial discretionary powers, including:
- Selection of the Chief Minister: When no party secures a majority, the Governor must choose the leader most likely to command the confidence of the legislature (Article 164).
- Dissolution of the Assembly: The Governor can dissolve the Legislative Assembly, either on the advice of the Council of Ministers or, in certain circumstances, exercising their own judgment.
- Granting Assent to Bills: The Governor can withhold assent to bills passed by the legislature, though this power is subject to judicial review.
Challenges in the Coalition Era
The coalition era presents unique challenges to the Governor’s role:
1. Determining Majority Support
In a hung assembly, determining which coalition commands the majority becomes complex. Governors must navigate competing claims from different factions, often relying on letters of support from legislators. This process is prone to manipulation and allegations of horse-trading. The S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) case established guidelines for the exercise of Article 356 (President’s Rule), emphasizing the need for objective evidence of a lack of majority before imposing President’s Rule, which indirectly impacts the Governor’s actions.
2. Political Neutrality and Bias
The Governor’s office is often seen as an extension of the central government, particularly if the Governor is from the same political party as the ruling party at the Centre. This perception can lead to accusations of bias, especially when the Governor’s decisions favor a particular coalition. The Karnataka Assembly elections of 2018, where the Governor invited B.S. Yeddyurappa to form the government despite lacking a clear majority, and subsequently asked him to prove his majority within 24 hours, sparked significant controversy.
3. Maintaining Stability vs. Respecting the Mandate
The Governor faces a dilemma between ensuring political stability and respecting the democratic mandate. Prolonged uncertainty can hinder governance, but prematurely inviting a coalition that lacks genuine support can undermine democracy. The Governor must balance these competing considerations carefully.
4. Increased Scope for Judicial Intervention
The Governor’s actions are subject to judicial review. Frequent interventions by courts in matters related to government formation and dissolution of assemblies demonstrate the increasing scrutiny of the Governor’s role. The Maharashtra political crisis of 2022-23, involving the Shiv Sena split and subsequent government formation, saw extensive judicial intervention regarding the Governor’s actions.
Strengthening the Governor’s Role
To mitigate these challenges, several measures can be considered:
- Clearer Guidelines: The Sarkaria Commission (1988) and the Punchhi Commission (2007) provided recommendations on the Governor’s role, but these are not legally binding. Codifying these recommendations into law could provide greater clarity.
- Time-Bound Processes: Establishing time-bound procedures for government formation and proving majority can reduce uncertainty and prevent manipulation.
- Neutral Appointments: Appointing Governors who are non-political and possess a strong understanding of constitutional law can enhance the credibility of the office.
- Greater Transparency: Making the Governor’s decision-making process more transparent can build public trust and reduce accusations of bias.
| Challenge | Impact on Governor’s Role | Potential Solution |
|---|---|---|
| Determining Majority Support | Increased scrutiny, potential for manipulation | Time-bound procedures, reliance on verifiable evidence |
| Political Neutrality | Accusations of bias, erosion of trust | Non-political appointments, transparent decision-making |
| Maintaining Stability | Dilemma between stability and mandate | Balanced approach, adherence to constitutional principles |
Conclusion
In conclusion, the role of the Governor in the coalition era is undeniably challenging. The absence of a clear majority necessitates a delicate balancing act between constitutional principles, political realities, and the need for stability. Strengthening the Governor’s position through clearer guidelines, neutral appointments, and greater transparency is crucial to ensure the office remains a neutral arbiter and upholds the democratic fabric of the nation. The evolving political landscape demands a proactive approach to refine the Governor’s role and safeguard against potential constitutional crises.
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.