N4S: 

This article explores a timely clash between cultural symbolism and constitutional authority, using the Kerala Raj Bhavan controversy as a lens. UPSC typically asks such questions by merging static constitutional provisions with dynamic political events, like in the 2022 question on the Governor’s ordinance powers. However, aspirants often falter by focusing solely on textbook articles (like Articles 154 and 163) without understanding real-world application or judicial interpretation.Under heads like Governor’s Constitutional Role vs Elected Government and Constitutional Norms vs Cultural Nationalism, it breaks down the legal, political, and symbolic dimensions of the issue. It also brings in comparative flashpoints like Ayodhya, hijab bans, and Vande Mataram debates – offering aspirants a broader framework to answer questions on secularism, executive restraint, and state symbolism.

PYQ ANCHORING:

GS 2 :  Discuss the essential conditions for exercise of the legislative powers by the Governor. Discuss the legality of re-promulgation of ordinances by the Governor without placing them before the Legislature. [2022]

MICROTHEMES:  Executive Vs Legislature

A controversy erupted in Kerala after the Governor placed a portrait of Bharat Mata in an official room of the Raj Bhavan. The elected state government objected, arguing that this unilateral act violated constitutional norms and the principle of state neutrality. The issue reflects broader tensions between constitutional propriety and cultural nationalism. Thus, the issue represents a clash between procedural legitimacy and symbolic assertion. This raises a deeper question: Can nationalism expressed through cultural symbols coexist with a secular constitutional democracy that mandates institutional neutrality?

About the Bharat Mata Image

1. Literary Origins: The idea of Bharat Mata first appeared in Anandamath (1882) by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay as Banga Mata (Mother Bengal). The novel introduced the hymn “Vande Mataram”, later adopted as a national song.
2. Artistic Representation: In 1905, Abanindranath Tagore painted Bharat Mata as a saffron-clad, four-armed woman, resembling a Hindu goddess. This image was popularised by Sister Nivedita during the Swadeshi movement.
3. Political Evolution: Bharat Mata became a powerful emotional and unifying symbol during the Indian freedom struggle. The slogan “Bharat Mata ki Jai” gained mass appeal and was used in nationalist mobilisations.
4. No Legal Recognition: Despite its influence, Bharat Mata has no constitutional or legal status as a national symbol.
5. Post-Independence Role: Bharat Mata continues as a cultural and symbolic figure, occasionally invoked in political rhetoric. Its presence in official or state spaces often sparks debate and controversy.

Governor’s Constitutional Role vs Elected Government

1. Constitutional Head: The Governor is the nominal head of the state and is bound to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers (Article 163).
   • Explanation: Cannot independently decide on administrative matters, such as installing symbols in Raj Bhavan.
2. No Personal Discretion: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar clarified in the Constituent Assembly that the Governor has no independent or personal powers.
   • Explanation: Governor is a constitutional figure, not meant to take individual decisions outside ministerial advice.
3. Supreme Court Rulings: In Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that Governors cannot use personal discretion in routine affairs.
   • Explanation: Discretion is allowed only in exceptional constitutional situations, not daily governance.
4. Protocol Violation: Installing non-official symbols like Bharat Mata without government approval breaches constitutional norms.
   • Explanation: The Kerala government criticised such actions as violating democratic procedures and state protocol.

Constitutional Norms vs Cultural Nationalism

The issue of placing a Bharat Mata image in official spaces like the Raj Bhavan has sparked a larger debate between constitutional norms and cultural nationalism.

1. Constitutional Norms: Rule-Based, Secular, Institutional

• Governor’s Role is Constitutional, Not Cultural: The Governor is bound by the Constitution to act on the advice of the elected government (Article 163) and cannot use the office to promote personal or ideological symbols.
• No Official Status for Bharat Mata: Unlike the national flag or emblem, Bharat Mata is not a state-recognised symbol, and placing her image in a constitutional office violates institutional neutrality.
• Secular Framework: The Indian Constitution upholds  secular ethos. Since Bharat Mata is often depicted in a form resembling Hindu iconography, its official display can be seen as privileging one cultural-religious tradition over others.
• Democratic Protocols: Any use of public institutions or symbols must reflect collective state decisions, not unilateral actions by unelected constitutional authorities.

2. Cultural Nationalism: Identity, Emotion, Symbolism

• Bharat Mata as a Unifying Symbol: For many, Bharat Mata represents national pride, cultural heritage, and emotional unity, especially rooted in India’s freedom struggle and civilizational ethos.
• Assertion of Cultural Identity: Proponents argue that placing the image affirms India’s civilizational continuity and reflects the will of the majority or dominant culture.
• Symbol Beyond Religion: Some argue that Bharat Mata transcends religion and is a symbol of patriotism, not necessarily tied to Hinduism, and thus deserves a place in public institutions.

Key Flashpoints in India

View of Judiciary

Over the years, the Indian judiciary has played a crucial role in navigating the tensions between constitutional norms and cultural nationalism. It has acted as a constitutional guardian when symbolic assertions have come head-on with the secular-democratic fabric. 

1. Affirming Secularism as a Basic Feature

• Case: S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
• Observation: The Supreme Court ruled that secularism is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
• Relevance: This judgment established that state institutions must remain neutral in matters of religion, setting limits on the role of cultural nationalism in governance.

2. Restricting Forced Cultural Symbols

• Case: Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986)
• Observation: SC held that students belonging to the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith cannot be forced to sing the national anthem if it goes against their beliefs.
• Relevance: Protects individual freedom of conscience over state-imposed patriotic symbols, reaffirming constitutional rights over cultural uniformity.

3. Vande Mataram Not Compulsory

• Case: SC Order (2017)
• Observation: Clarified that singing Vande Mataram is not mandatory in schools or public spaces.
• Relevance: Pushback against efforts to equate cultural-nationalist symbols with patriotism, protecting freedom of expression and belief.

4. Ayodhya Verdict: Balancing Faith and Rule of Law

• Case: M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das (2019 – Ayodhya Dispute)
• Observation: Court acknowledged the faith of Hindus in Ram Janmabhoomi, while also affirming the illegality of mosque demolition and providing alternative land to Muslims.
• Relevance: Seen as an effort to balance constitutional neutrality with deep-seated cultural sentiment.

5. Freedom of Religion in Attire

• Case: Fathima Tasneem v. State of Kerala (2018) & Karnataka Hijab Case (2022)
• Observation: Courts gave mixed rulings—Kerala HC upheld school uniforms; Karnataka HC said hijab is not essential religious practice.
• Relevance: Courts have struggled to maintain a clear line between individual religious freedom and uniform cultural practices.

6. Limiting Governor’s Discretion

• Case: Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016)
• Observation: SC ruled that the Governor cannot act without the aid and advice of the council of ministers except in specific cases.
• Relevance: Prevents constitutional offices from becoming platforms for personal or ideological expression, relevant in Bharat Mata image controversies.

7. Upholding Right to Food and Privacy

• Case: Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017 – Right to Privacy) & Mob Lynching Cases
• Observation: Right to food, privacy, and personal choices are fundamental rights under Article 21.
• Relevance: Serves as a constitutional check against majoritarian moral policing, like beef bans and vigilante actions.

Way Forward

1. Prioritise Constitutional Duty: Public officials must uphold constitutional principles over personal or ideological preferences in official matters.
2. Maintain Institutional Neutrality: Personal beliefs must not shape public conduct; official spaces should remain neutral and inclusive.
3. Codify Symbol Use in Government Offices: Create a formal list of approved national symbols (flag, emblem, anthem) for use in official spaces.
4. Strengthen Constitutional Literacy: Train public officials on the scope and limits of their constitutional role, especially in symbolic matters.

#BACK2BASICS : CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION OF THE GOVERNOR

Constitutional Position of the Governor

1. Nominal Head of State
   • India follows a parliamentary system at both Union and State levels.
   • The Governor is the nominal executive, functioning with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers led by the Chief Minister.
2. Key Constitutional Articles
   • Article 154: Executive power of the state vests in the Governor.
   • Article 163: The Governor acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except where discretion is permitted.
   • Article 164: Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly (core of parliamentary accountability).
3. Governor vs President: Key Differences
   • The Governor has discretionary powers in certain matters; the President does not (except in limited cases).
   • After the 42nd Amendment (1976), the President must act on ministerial advice—no such compulsion exists for the Governor.

Types of Discretion

A. Constitutional Discretion (Explicitly Mentioned in the Constitution)

1. Reserving a bill for the President’s consideration (Art. 200)
2. Recommending President’s Rule in the state (Art. 356)
3. Acting as administrator of a Union Territory with additional charge
4. Deciding royalty payments to Tribal District Councils in Northeast
5. Seeking information from the Chief Minister (Art. 167)

B. Situational Discretion (Implied/Derived from Political Circumstances)

1. Appointing a Chief Minister in case of a hung assembly or CM’s death
2. Dismissing the Council of Ministers if they lose the Assembly’s confidence
3. Dissolving the Legislative Assembly when government loses majority

Special Responsibilities (Discretion Based on Presidential Directions)

The Governor acts in discretion in certain states as per special directives from the President, even while consulting the state government:

Key Supreme Court Cases on Governor’s Discretionary Powers

1. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974)
   • Key Holding: The Governor is a constitutional head and must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in all matters except where the Constitution explicitly provides discretion.
   • Significance: Laid down the foundational principle limiting discretionary powers.
2. Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006) (Bihar Assembly Dissolution Case)
   • Key Holding: The Governor’s report recommending dissolution of the assembly without allowing government formation was held unconstitutional.
   • Significance: Governors must act with objectivity and constitutional responsibility, not on political whim.
3. Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016)
   • Key Holding: The Governor cannot summon or dissolve the assembly without the advice of the Council of Ministers.
   • Significance: Strongly curtailed discretionary misuse and clarified that even legislative sessions must be decided in consultation with the elected government.
4. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
   • Key Holding: The floor of the House is the only valid forum to test majority; Governors cannot assume loss of confidence arbitrarily.
   • Significance: Prevents Governors from unilaterally dismissing state governments.
5. Arunachal Pradesh Assembly Case (2016)
   • Follow-up to Nabam Rebia: The Supreme Court quashed the President’s Rule and Governor’s actions as unconstitutional.
   • Significance: Reinforced that Governors cannot act independently except in constitutionally defined situations.
6. Kehar Singh v. Union of India (1989)
   • While not directly about Governors, it clarified executive power and discretion, which also applies to the Governor’s role under Article 161 (pardoning powers).
7. Prafulla Kumar Mahanta Case (Assam, 2001) (Gauhati HC upheld by SC)
   • Issue: Governor invited a party with less seats to form government.
   • SC View: Governors have limited discretion in hung assemblies, but it must be exercised with fairness and neutrality.

SMASH MAINS MOCK DROP

“In a constitutional democracy, the exercise of gubernatorial powers must be guided by neutrality, not symbolism.” In light of recent controversies surrounding cultural assertions by Governors, critically examine the constitutional limitations on the discretionary powers of the Governor. How do such actions impact federal principles and secularism in India?