Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Indian Constitution, framed with the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, establishes a responsible government where the executive is accountable to the legislature. Article 163 of the Constitution stipulates that the Governor shall exercise his functions “on the advice of the Council of Ministers,” headed by the Chief Minister. However, this provision isn’t absolute, containing exceptions where the Governor can act in his discretion. This seemingly straightforward provision has become a focal point of intense debate in recent times, particularly in states where there are hung assemblies or where the relationship between the Governor and the ruling party is strained, raising concerns about the potential for misuse of discretionary powers and undermining democratic norms.
Constitutional Provision and Exceptions
Article 163 lays down the foundation of the Governor’s role as a constitutional head. It mandates that the Governor exercise his functions on the advice of the Council of Ministers, except in cases where the Constitution specifically requires him to exercise his judgment or discretion. These exceptions, though not exhaustively defined in the Constitution, generally relate to:
- Reservation of Bills for Presidential Assent (Article 200): The Governor can reserve a bill passed by the state legislature for the President’s consideration.
- Appointment of State Public Service Commission (Article 320): The Governor appoints the State Public Service Commission.
- Discretionary Powers in Specific Situations: This is the most debated area, encompassing situations like the appointment of the Chief Minister when no party has a clear majority, or when a government loses its majority mid-term.
Recent Debates and Controversies
The recent debates surrounding Article 163 stem from instances where Governors have been accused of exceeding their discretionary powers, particularly in states with unstable political situations. Several cases have sparked controversy:
- Maharashtra (2019): The Governor’s decision to invite Devendra Fadnavis to form a government despite the Shiv Sena-NCP-Congress alliance claiming a majority was heavily criticized as a violation of democratic norms.
- Karnataka (2018): The Governor’s decision to invite B.S. Yeddyurappa to form the government despite lacking a clear majority, and subsequently asking him to prove his majority within 24 hours, was challenged in court.
- Rajasthan (2020): The Governor’s initial reluctance to convene a legislative assembly session demanded by the Chief Minister during a political crisis raised concerns about interference in the functioning of the elected government.
These instances highlight the potential for Governors, appointed by the central government, to act in a partisan manner, potentially undermining the federal structure and democratic principles.
Judicial Pronouncements
The judiciary has played a crucial role in defining the scope of the Governor’s discretionary powers. Key judgments include:
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): This landmark case established that the Governor’s actions are subject to judicial review. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Governor is not an agent of the central government and must act independently. It also clarified that the imposition of President’s Rule under Article 356 is subject to judicial review.
- Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016): This case dealt with the role of the Governor in the Arunachal Pradesh political crisis. The Court held that the Governor’s decision to advance the legislative assembly session was improper and violated the principles of constitutionalism.
However, the judiciary’s ability to intervene is often limited by the “justiciability” of the issue. Courts generally refrain from interfering in matters of political judgment unless there is a clear violation of constitutional principles.
The Role of Sarkaria Commission and Inter-State Council
The Sarkaria Commission (1988), constituted to review Centre-State relations, recommended guidelines for the exercise of Governor’s discretionary powers. It suggested that the Governor should act as a neutral umpire in situations of political uncertainty and should avoid taking any action that could be construed as partisan. The Inter-State Council, established under Article 263, also provides a platform for discussing issues related to Centre-State relations, including the role of the Governor.
Impact on Federalism and Democratic Governance
The misuse of discretionary powers by Governors can have a detrimental impact on federalism and democratic governance. It can lead to political instability, erode public trust in institutions, and undermine the principles of accountability and transparency. A strong and independent Governor, acting as a neutral constitutional head, is essential for maintaining the delicate balance of power between the Centre and the States.
Conclusion
The constitutional provision regarding the Governor’s role, while intended to ensure a harmonious relationship between the executive and the head of the state, remains a subject of ongoing debate. The recent controversies underscore the need for greater clarity and consensus on the scope of discretionary powers. Strengthening the institutional mechanisms for Centre-State consultation, adhering to the recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission, and fostering a political culture of respecting constitutional norms are crucial steps towards safeguarding federalism and upholding democratic principles in India. A more defined framework, potentially through constitutional amendment or judicial pronouncements, could help mitigate the risks of partisan interference and ensure the Governor’s role remains consistent with the spirit of the Constitution.
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.