EVOLVING ROLE OF GOVERNORS IN INDIA

EVOLVING ROLE OF GOVERNORS IN INDIA Abstract This article critically examines the evolving role of Governors in India, with a special focus on recent constitutional confrontations between the Tamil Nadu Governor and the elected state government. It explores the legal framework under Articles 200, 201, and 163 of the Indian Constitution, highlighting the Governor's powers concerning state legislation, discretionary authority, and limitations. The study underscores concerns over political partisanship, lack of accountability, and the erosion of federal principles due to the misuse of the Governor’s office. Drawing insights from historical debates in the Constituent Assembly, key judicial pronouncements, and recommendations of the Sarkaria, Venkatachaliah, and Punchhi Commissions, the document advocates for systemic reforms. It suggests transparent appointment procedures, codification of discretionary powers, and accountability mechanisms to restore the Governor’s role as a neutral constitutional figure. The Supreme Court’s recent judgment serves as a reaffirmation of democratic principles and cooperative federalism, emphasizing the need for Governors to function within their constitutional limits. Introduction The role of the Governor in Tamil Nadu has once again sparked debate about the relevance of this colonial-era institution. The Supreme Court recently issued a reminder that the Governor is not an elected official and must not exceed the constitutional limits of his authority in dealings with the elected government. This reminder followed the Governor’s return of ten bills passed by the Tamil Nadu state legislature, without offering any valid reasons. In response, the Speaker of the Assembly called for a special session to re-approve the same bills. Additionally, several key decisions have been left pending by the Governor without any justification. These include approvals related to the prosecution of former AIADMK ministers, appointments to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, and early release of prisoners. The Constitution's framers envisioned the Governor as a neutral constitutional figure—serving as a reliable advisor to the government and providing stability during periods of political or administrative uncertainty. However, the current situation reflects a stark contrast to that ideal. As tensions escalated into a serious constitutional dispute between the Tamil Nadu government and the Governor, the Supreme Court was called upon to resolve the conflict. The state has approached the Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking relief against the Governor’s actions — or lack thereof — in two key areas: i. Withholding assent or indefinitely reserving ten legislative bills for the President's consideration. ii. Failing to act on files related to granting sanction for prosecution of public officials and permitting investigations into serious corruption charges. Governor’s Powers over State Legislation Under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, the Governor is granted multiple courses of action when a bill passed by the state legislature is submitted for assent. 1. Assent – The Governor can approve the bill, making it a law. 2. Withhold Assent – The Governor can reject the bill. 3. Return the Bill – If the bill is not a money bill, the Governor can return it for reconsideration. However, if the legislature re-enacts the bill, whether amended or not, the Governor is bound to grant assent. 4. Reserve the Bill for the President – The Governor may refer the bill to the President for consideration, especially if it affects the powers of the High Court or is potentially unconstitutional or of national importance. Challenges with the Governor’s Office • Appointment Issues: Governors are appointed by the President on the central government’s advice, raising concerns about their neutrality. Often, appointees are aligned with the ruling party at the Centre, leading to political favoritism. • Discretionary Powers: Governors have several powers, including bill assent, appointing chief ministers, and reporting to the President. But their discretionary use of these powers has caused tensions with state governments, especially when they act against elected state leadership. • Lack of Accountability: Governors are largely unaccountable while in office, protected under Article 361. They can be removed at the Centre’s discretion, making them appear as agents of the Union government rather than impartial constitutional heads. Constituent Assembly’s View on the Governor’s Office Several Constituent Assembly members, including Dakshayani Velayudhan, Biswanath Das, and H.V. Kamath, criticized the role of the Governor, arguing that it undermined the autonomy of the states. They felt the provision mirrored colonial laws under the Government of India Act, 1935. However, B.R. Ambedkar defended the setup, stating the Governor was meant to work with state governments, not override them. He didn’t address the concern of Governors acting on behalf of the Centre. Should the Office of Governor Be Abolished? While frustration over Governors’ conduct sometimes sparks calls to scrap the office entirely, doing so would be hasty and impractical. The Governor serves as the constitutional head in a parliamentary democracy. Instead of abolishing the office, reforms to ensure accountability and transparency can address the current issues. Suggested Reforms • Judicial Oversight: Courts, especially the Supreme Court, can play a role in checking arbitrary actions by Governors, reinforcing constitutional norms. • Reformed Appointment and Removal Process: A more transparent system, possibly involving a committee or collegium, can be adopted to select Governors. Similarly, removal should be based on valid grounds rather than political will. • President-like Accountability: Governors could be made answerable to the state legislature, just as the President is to Parliament. • Elected Governors: Making the Governor an elected representative—either by the state legislature or directly by the people—could improve legitimacy and reduce central interference. • Impeachment Provision: Governors could be made impeachable by state legislatures for violating constitutional duties or misconduct, creating a formal check on their powers. Recommendations by Committees and Judiciary • Sarkaria Commission (1988): Suggested consultation with the state’s Chief Minister during appointments and recommended Governors act more as neutral intermediaries. • Venkatachaliah Commission (2002): Recommended a panel including the PM, Home Minister, Lok Sabha Speaker, and state CM for appointments. Governors should complete their term unless removed for serious reasons. • Punchhi Commission (2010): To improve state sovereignty and prevent the governor from being removed without cause, it was suggested that the term & during the pleasure of the President; be eliminated. • BP Singhal Case (2010): The Supreme Court ruled that while the President can remove a Governor without reason, such removal cannot be based on arbitrary or capricious grounds. Role of the Governor in Light of the Recent Supreme Court Judgment In a landmark ruling related to the ongoing constitutional conflict in Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court of India has provided important guidance on the constitutional position and duties of a state Governor. The case was triggered by the actions of the Tamil Nadu Governor, who returned ten bills passed by the state legislature without offering any substantial justification and also delayed key decisions such as granting approval to prosecute former ministers and making appointments to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Responding to a writ petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government under Article 32 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court made it clear that the Governor is a constitutional functionary and not an elected official. The Court emphasized that, in accordance with Article 163 of the Constitution, the Governor must act with the Council of Ministers' assistance and advice and cannot take on an autonomous or obstructive role that would impair the operation of the elected government. The Court took strong exception to the Governor’s extended silence and delays, observing that such conduct goes against the foundational democratic values of the Constitution. It reiterated that the Governor's office is not to be used for political or partisan purposes but should remain neutral, serving as a link between the Union and the State and acting as a stabilizing institution during challenging times. The judgment also reflected on the original vision of the Constitution’s architects, who saw the Governor as a ceremonial head of the state — a prudent advisor and a symbol of constitutional balance — rather than a figure who blocks or disrupts the legislature’s decisions. The Court highlighted that failure or delay in fulfilling constitutional responsibilities erodes effective governance and damages public confidence in the institution. Overall, this ruling is a strong reaffirmation of India’s federal structure, the separation of powers, and the necessity of upholding constitutional discipline. It reinforces that constitutional authorities must act within their defined roles and uphold the democratic choices of the people. Conclusion The recent controversies and judicial observations concerning the role of Governors have reignited the larger conversation about their relevance and functioning in India’s federal structure. Rather than advocating for the abolition of the Governor’s post, which remains a key element of constitutional design, there is a growing consensus that what is urgently needed is a thoughtful and systemic reform of the institution. A key priority for reform is ensuring transparency in the appointment process. Currently, the appointment process is largely influenced by political considerations, often leading to perceptions of partisanship and bias. Introducing a consultative or independent mechanism for appointing Governors—perhaps involving inputs from both the Union and State governments—could help ensure that appointees are experienced, impartial, and respected figures with a clear understanding of constitutional conventions. Equally important is the need to limit and clearly define the Governor's discretionary powers. While the Constitution provides certain discretionary powers, their undefined scope has led to frequent misuse or overreach, especially in politically sensitive situations such as government formation, assent to bills, and decisions regarding President’s Rule. Codifying these powers or laying down guiding principles through legislation or constitutional amendments could curb arbitrary decisions and reinforce the Governor’s role as a neutral constitutional functionary. Moreover, accountability mechanisms must be strengthened. Currently, there is little recourse or transparency when Governors delay or deny important decisions, as seen in the recent Tamil Nadu case. Introducing time-bound decision-making obligations, periodic reviews, and provisions for legislative oversight could ensure Governors are held accountable to constitutional norms rather than political interests. Ultimately, the goal should be to recalibrate the institution of the Governor so that it truly serves its original purpose—as a ceremonial head, a wise advisor in times of crisis, and an unbiased junction that upholds harmony between central and state authorities. Preserving this balance is crucial for maintaining the spirit of cooperative federalism, ensuring that both the Centre and States function within their constitutionally assigned domains. The Supreme Court’s judgment serves as a timely reminder that in a democracy, power must be exercised with responsibility and restraint. Strengthening the office of the Governor through meaningful reforms will not only prevent future conflicts but also reinforce the foundational principles of federalism, democracy, and constitutionalism that lie at the heart of India’s governance. FAQs Q: Why is the role of the Governor in India being debated again? A: The Governor's role came under scrutiny after the Tamil Nadu Governor returned ten state legislature bills without valid reasons, delaying key decisions and creating a constitutional crisis. Q: What powers does the Governor have under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution? A: The Governor can : - Give assent to a bill, - Withhold assent, - A non-money bill may be returned for reconsideration, but must be assented if re-passed, - Reserve a bill for the President’s consideration. Q: Can the Governor Delay decisions indefinitely? A: No. The Supreme Court has criticized such delays, stating that inaction goes against the Constitution and erodes democratic governance. Q: What did the Constituent Assembly members say about the Governor’s role? A: Many, like Dakshayani Velayudhan and Biswanath Das, viewed the Governor as a colonial relic that undermines state autonomy. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, however, defended the office as a constitutional necessity. Q: What reforms have been proposed to improve the Governor’s office? A: Key reforms include: - Transparent appointment and removal processes, - Limiting discretionary powers, - Making Governors accountable to state legislatures, - Possibility of elected Governors, - Introduction of an impeachment mechanism. Q: What is the ideal role of the Governor in a democracy? A: The Governor should be a neutral constitutional authority, ensuring stability, respecting democratic values, and maintaining the federal balance. Q: How can misuse of power by Governors be prevented? A: By codifying discretionary powers, introducing accountability measures, and establishing transparent appointment mechanisms.