Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Governor, as enshrined in Article 155 of the Constitution, is the formal head of the state, acting as a representative of the Union Government. The framers of the Constitution envisioned the Governor as a sagacious counsellor to the state government, mediating disputes and ensuring adherence to constitutional norms. However, the role has often been subject to political interpretation and controversy, particularly in states with coalition governments or hung assemblies. Recent political developments, such as the formation of governments in Maharashtra (2019) and Karnataka (2018), have brought the Governor’s role under intense scrutiny, raising questions about neutrality and adherence to established conventions. This answer will examine the evolving role of the Governor in state politics, assessing the extent to which they function as a counsellor versus an active political player.
Constitutional Provisions Regarding the Governor
The Constitution outlines several powers and functions of the Governor, including:
- Appointment: Appointed by the President (Article 155).
- Powers: Executive powers (Article 162), legislative powers (Article 163 – including ordinance promulgation), judicial powers (granting pardons, etc.).
- Discretionary Powers: Selection of the Chief Minister in case of a hung assembly, dissolving the Legislative Assembly, reserving a bill for Presidential assent.
These discretionary powers, while intended to be exercised judiciously, are often the source of controversy, as they provide scope for political maneuvering.
Historical Evolution of the Governor’s Role
Initially, Governors were largely non-political figures, often retired civil servants or judges. However, over time, the trend shifted towards appointing individuals with active political backgrounds. This change coincided with the increasing politicization of Indian politics and the rise of coalition governments.
The Sarkaria Commission (1988) emphasized the need for Governors to act as impartial umpires in state politics and recommended guidelines for exercising discretionary powers. The Commission advocated for consultation with the Council of Ministers in most matters, reinforcing the principle of collective responsibility. However, these recommendations are not legally binding.
Governor as a Sagacious Counsellor and Mediator
In several instances, Governors have played a constructive role in resolving political crises and upholding constitutional norms:
- Example: Tamil Nadu (1988): Governor P.C. Alexander invited Janaki Ramachandran to form the government after M.G. Ramachandran’s death, but the government quickly lost its majority, leading to President’s Rule. While controversial, the Governor attempted to provide a stable government.
- Mediation during coalition governments: Governors have often facilitated negotiations between different political parties to form stable governments, acting as a neutral mediator.
In these cases, the Governor acted as a facilitator, ensuring a smooth transition of power and upholding democratic principles.
Governor as an Active Politician
However, there have been numerous instances where the Governor’s actions have been perceived as partisan and politically motivated:
- Karnataka (2018): The Governor invited B.S. Yeddyurappa to form the government despite the BJP lacking a clear majority, leading to a short-lived government and subsequent imposition of President’s Rule. This was widely criticized as a politically motivated decision.
- Maharashtra (2019): The Governor’s decision to invite Devendra Fadnavis to form the government in a post-election scenario, despite the lack of a clear majority, and the subsequent revocation of President’s Rule, sparked a major political crisis and accusations of bias.
- West Bengal (2022-2023): Frequent clashes between the Governor and the state government over various issues, including appointments to universities, were seen as reflecting the Governor’s alignment with the opposition party.
These examples demonstrate how the Governor’s discretionary powers can be misused to serve political ends, undermining the neutrality expected of the office.
Challenges and Concerns
Several factors contribute to the politicization of the Governor’s office:
- Centralization of Power: The Governor’s appointment by the President, and the central government’s influence over the appointment process, can lead to a perception of bias.
- Lack of Clear Guidelines: The absence of legally binding guidelines for exercising discretionary powers allows for subjective interpretation.
- Political Polarization: Increasing political polarization and adversarial relationships between the Centre and states exacerbate the risk of partisan actions.
Conclusion
The role of the Governor in Indian state politics remains a complex and often contentious issue. While the Constitution envisions a non-partisan counsellor, the reality is often different, with Governors frequently drawn into political controversies. Strengthening the institution requires greater transparency in the appointment process, the codification of guidelines for exercising discretionary powers, and a commitment from both the Centre and states to uphold constitutional norms. Ultimately, the Governor’s effectiveness hinges on their ability to act as an impartial umpire, safeguarding the principles of federalism and democratic 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.