Evolving Role of State Governors in India: Constitutional Office or Political Instrument?
Introduction
The Governor of an Indian state, as envisaged by the Constitution, is a nominal executive—a constitutional head appointed by the President (Article 155) and expected to function with impartiality, discretion, and adherence to constitutional conventions. B.R. Ambedkar had hoped the Governor would act as a neutral arbiter, upholding federal balance while facilitating cooperative Centre–State relations. However, in practice—especially over the past decade—the office has increasingly become a site of constitutional contention, reflecting growing partisan tendencies and straining the delicate fabric of Indian federalism.
This essay critically examines the evolution of the Governor’s role in the last ten years, focusing on its politicization, key constitutional controversies, and the broader implications for federalism and democratic norms in India.
1. The Constitutional Design and Discretionary Powers
The Indian Constitution accords the Governor three main roles:
- Constitutional Head of the State Executive (Articles 153–162);
- Discretionary authority in specific circumstances (Article 163), including:
- Appointment of Chief Minister in a hung assembly;
- Recommending President’s Rule (Article 356);
- Reserving bills for Presidential assent (Article 200);
- Liaison between the Centre and State, ensuring the state functions in accordance with the Constitution.
This dual responsibility—to the Constitution and to the Union Government—creates a structural ambiguity, often exacerbated by political incentives.
2. Evolving Trends in the Past Decade (2014–2024)
A. Increasing Partisan Appointments and Allegiances
- Since 2014, with the consolidation of power by the BJP at the Centre, Governor appointments have increasingly been made from among former party leaders, loyal bureaucrats, and retired judges with known ideological affiliations.
- This has led to accusations of bias and erosion of credibility of the Governor’s office, particularly in non-BJP ruled states.
Examples:
- The appointment of former Chief Ministers or party leaders (e.g., Satya Pal Malik, Tathagata Roy, Jagdeep Dhankhar) has led to confrontational stances with elected state governments.
- In states like West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Maharashtra, and Punjab, Governors have been openly accused of pushing partisan agendas under the guise of constitutional discretion.
B. Controversial Use of Discretionary Powers
- Government Formation in Hung Assemblies
- Karnataka (2018): Governor Vajubhai Vala invited BJP to form the government as the single-largest party, despite a post-poll alliance (Congress–JD(S)) having majority support. The Supreme Court intervened and expedited the floor test.
- Maharashtra (2019): Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari swore in Devendra Fadnavis and Ajit Pawar in an overnight ceremony, even though the Shiv Sena–NCP–Congress alliance had the numbers. The government collapsed in 80 hours.
- Such episodes have eroded the Governor’s image as a neutral constitutional authority, transforming the role into an agent of executive fiat.
- President’s Rule Recommendations
- While Article 356 has seen more judicious use since the S.R. Bommai judgment (1994), Governor recommendations have not been entirely free of political motives, especially when aimed at destabilizing non-aligned state governments.
- Withholding or Delaying Assent to Bills
- In Tamil Nadu (NEET exemption, anti-CAA resolutions), Kerala (university appointments), and Punjab (agriculture-related bills), Governors have delayed assent or reserved bills indefinitely.
- This has paralysed state legislative autonomy, undermining the spirit of cooperative federalism.
3. Frictions with Elected State Governments
A. Institutional Conflict and Public Spats
- The Governor’s office has frequently entered into open conflicts with Chief Ministers, defying protocol and challenging the legitimacy of elected governments.
- West Bengal witnessed repeated clashes between Governor Dhankhar and CM Mamata Banerjee, over issues ranging from law and order to appointments in state universities.
B. University and Vice-Chancellor Appointments
- In many states, Governors function as Chancellors of state universities, leading to fierce disputes over appointments, often reflecting ideological battles.
- Kerala and Tamil Nadu have witnessed legal and legislative attempts to curtail or redefine the Governor’s role in academic governance.
C. Delays in Summoning Legislative Assemblies
- The refusal or delay by Governors to summon sessions, as in Punjab and Tamil Nadu, has raised serious concerns about legislative independence and constitutional crisis.
4. Impact on Federalism and Democratic Norms
A. Undermining the Principle of Federal Autonomy
- The misuse of gubernatorial powers has led to over-centralisation and erosion of state autonomy, violating the federal compact envisioned in the Constitution.
- The Inter-State Council and Zonal Councils, which could facilitate cooperative dialogue, have been underutilised, while Governor-State tensions remain unmediated.
B. Weakening Democratic Institutions
- Frequent interference in administrative matters, refusal to act on cabinet advice, or acting as political critics has delegitimized the Governor’s moral authority.
- The perception of the Governor as a political saboteur, rather than a constitutional sentinel, weakens the checks-and-balances ethos of parliamentary democracy.
5. Judicial Responses and Constitutional Discourse
- The judiciary has repeatedly emphasized constitutional morality and non-partisanship as essential features of the Governor’s role.
- In Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016), the Supreme Court ruled that the Governor cannot act independently of the Council of Ministers, except in areas of constitutional discretion.
- However, judicial restraint and the ambiguity of Article 163 have allowed continued discretionary excesses, especially in non-justiciable matters like bill reservations.
6. Reform Proposals and Normative Alternatives
A. Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions’ Recommendations
- The Sarkaria Commission (1988) and Punchhi Commission (2010) called for:
- Appointing Governors in consultation with the Chief Minister;
- Restricting discretionary powers through codification;
- Fixing tenures to avoid arbitrary removals.
Despite being widely endorsed, these recommendations have not been implemented.
B. Towards Institutional Correctives
- Constitutional amendments clarifying gubernatorial powers may be necessary.
- Greater use of parliamentary scrutiny, public transparency, and legislative oversight can restore credibility.
- Encouraging Governors to adopt a non-activist role, modeled after constitutional monarchies, can help reaffirm neutrality.
Conclusion
Over the past decade, the office of the Governor in India has increasingly become a site of partisan maneuvering rather than constitutional stewardship. This evolution—rooted in political appointments, strategic interference, and discretionary misuse—has led to structural tensions within Indian federalism and undermined democratic norms.
While the constitutional vision mandates the Governor to act as a neutral bridge between the Centre and States, reality has often seen the role reduced to that of a political instrument, especially in states governed by opposition parties. If India’s federal democracy is to mature, it requires an urgent reappraisal of the Governor’s role, rooted in constitutional morality, institutional restraint, and political consensus. The restoration of neutrality and transparency in the functioning of this office is not only desirable but essential for safeguarding the federal spirit of the Indian Constitution.
Discover more from Polity Prober
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.