Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The office of the Governor in India’s parliamentary system is often described as 'sui generis' – unique and unparalleled – reflecting a blend of constitutional and political responsibilities. Appointed by the President, the Governor acts as the representative of the Union government in the states. While formally the constitutional head, the practical reality is that the Governor's power is significantly constrained by constitutional provisions and political considerations. The statement highlights a critical area within which the Governor exercises discretion, albeit within limitations. This is particularly relevant in the context of recent debates surrounding the Governor’s role, especially concerning instances of perceived political bias and intervention. The Sarkaria Commission, established in 1983, attempted to define and clarify these discretionary powers, and its recommendations remain crucial for understanding the contemporary debate.
Understanding the 'Sui Generis' Nature of the Governor's Office
The term 'sui generis' accurately captures the peculiar position of the Governor. Unlike the President, who is elected, the Governor is appointed, making them directly accountable to the ruling party at the Centre. This inherent dynamic creates a potential for conflict and raises questions about neutrality. The Constitution intended the Governor to be a non-partisan figure, acting as a stabilizing force in state politics. However, the reality has often been different, with Governors frequently facing pressure to align with the central government’s agenda.
Constitutional Framework & Limitations on Governor's Powers
The Constitution outlines several key functions and powers of the Governor, including:
- Appointment of Ministers: Article 163 grants power to appoint the Chief Minister and other ministers.
- Dissolving the Assembly: Article 163(2) allows dissolution of the Assembly under specific circumstances.
- Calling Sessions of the Legislature: Article 169 outlines the procedure and powers related to legislative sessions.
- Assenting to Bills: Article 200 deals with the Governor’s assent to bills passed by the legislature.
However, these powers are not absolute. The Supreme Court has, through various judgments (e.g., Shankari Prasad vs. President of India (1951), Bommai vs. Union of India (1979), S.R. Bommai vs. India (1994)), significantly curtailed the Governor's discretionary powers, emphasizing the principle of cooperative federalism.
The Sarkaria Commission and its Recommendations
The Sarkaria Commission, chaired by Justice P.V. Rajamannar, was constituted in 1983 to review the role, functions and status of Governors. Key recommendations included:
- Discretionary Powers: The Commission acknowledged the Governor’s discretionary powers but emphasized their exercise should be based on constitutional principles and not arbitrary political considerations.
- Calling Assembly Sessions: The Commission recommended that Governors should summon the assembly sessions on the advice of the Chief Minister, except in exceptional circumstances.
- Dissolving the Assembly: It advocated that the Governor should exercise the power to dissolve the assembly only on the advice of the Chief Minister, and in cases of breakdown of constitutional machinery, the action should be taken only after obtaining prior approval of the President.
- Impartiality: The Commission stressed the need for Governors to be politically neutral and to act as impartial arbiters.
The Commission’s report aimed to clarify the Governor's role and prevent misuse of their powers, promoting a more harmonious relationship between the Centre and the states.
Instances of Discretionary Power and Recent Controversies
Despite the Sarkaria Commission’s recommendations, controversies surrounding the Governor’s discretionary powers continue to arise. Examples include:
- Maharashtra Governor's Actions (2022): The Governor’s withholding of assent to a confidence motion moved by the Shiv Sena-NCP-Congress coalition government sparked a major political crisis, raising questions about adherence to constitutional norms.
- Tamil Nadu Governor's Actions (2023): The Governor’s refusal to address the state government’s requests for convening the assembly led to accusations of political bias.
These instances highlight the ongoing tension between the Governor's constitutional mandate and the influence of political considerations.
Comparison Table: Intended vs. Actual Functioning
| Aspect | Intended Functioning (Constitutional Ideal) | Actual Functioning (Contemporary Reality) |
|---|---|---|
| Political Neutrality | Impartial arbiter, above political affiliations | Often perceived as representing the ruling party’s interests at the Centre |
| Discretionary Powers | Exercised based on constitutional principles and objective circumstances | Frequently influenced by political expediency |
| Relationship with State Government | Cooperative and collaborative | Potentially adversarial due to political differences |
The Need for Reform
The continued controversies surrounding the Governor’s office underscore the need for reforms. Possible measures include:
- Fixed Tenure: Granting Governors a fixed tenure to insulate them from political whims.
- Selection Committee: Establishing a selection committee involving representatives from the state and central governments, as well as the judiciary, to ensure a more transparent and impartial selection process.
- Enhanced Accountability: Strengthening mechanisms for holding Governors accountable for their actions.
Conclusion
The Governor’s office remains a unique and complex element of India’s federal structure. While the Sarkaria Commission attempted to clarify the boundaries of discretionary power, the recent instances of political interference demonstrate the ongoing need for a re-evaluation of the role. Adherence to constitutional principles, greater transparency in the selection process, and enhanced accountability are crucial for ensuring that the Governor functions as a truly impartial and stabilizing force in the states, upholding the spirit of cooperative federalism. The Governor must be a guardian of the Constitution, not a pawn in political games.
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.