Governor vs. State
[29th November 2025] Hindu OpED The impartiality of a nominated Governor
PYQ Relevance[UPSC 2022] 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. Linkage: The question is directly linked to ongoing concerns of Governors delaying assent and re-promulgating ordinances, reflecting fears of an overstepping “interfering authority.” It tests whether the Governor today adheres to the Constitution’s vision of a neutral head bound by ministerial advice. |
Mentor’s Comment
This article examines the debate on the ‘impartiality of a nominated Governor’, revived after the recent Supreme Court judgment on the powers of Governors. The discussion draws heavily from the Constituent Assembly debates, views of B.R. Ambedkar, and the political context surrounding gubernatorial discretion. For UPSC aspirants, this topic is crucial for understanding Centre-State relations, federal tensions, constitutional morality, and ongoing administrative bottlenecks.
Introduction
The Supreme Court’s recent judgment on the role of Governors, along with its advisory opinion on the 16th Presidential reference, has reopened a foundational debate: What was the intended role of a Governor in an independent India? The Constituent Assembly deliberated deeply on the Governor’s impartiality, limited discretion, and non-interfering nature. Contemporary frictions between Governors and elected State governments have made these debates sharply relevant again. The article traces the evolution, constitutional position, and recurring controversies around the Governor’s office.
Why in the News
The Supreme Court’s latest judgment on gubernatorial powers has revived a long-standing constitutional controversy over whether Governors have exceeded their intended role. The ruling sharply contrasts past practice, where Governors often withheld assent or delayed Bills, exercising broad and ambiguous discretion. This is significant because Constituent Assembly debates categorically rejected any idea of a powerful, interfering Governor and saw him as a neutral constitutional head bound by ministerial advice. The issue has resurfaced as a major federal friction point, affecting State governance and raising concerns about constitutional morality.
What was the Constituent Assembly’s vision of a Governor?
- Limited discretion: Members clarified that the Governor’s discretion should be minimal and specifically enumerated; not a general discretionary authority.
- Non-interfering role: Dr. Ambedkar emphasised that the Governor must not act as an agent of the Centre nor interfere with the elected State government.
- Neutral constitutional head: The Governor was designed to be above suspicion and must not be “remote-controlled,” especially in a parliamentary system.
- No overriding authority: Ambedkar rejected giving Governors overriding powers (e.g., veto over Bills or control over ministries).
Why were doubts raised about the impartiality of a nominated Governor?
- Remote-control concerns: Members felt a nominated Governor could be influenced by the central government, undermining State autonomy.
- Fear of political bias: The Governor’s lack of electoral accountability created apprehensions regarding neutrality.
- Past colonial experience: Residual memories of Governors under the Government of India Act, 1935, who wielded significant discretionary powers, fuelled suspicion.
How did the framers restrict discretionary powers?
- Specific limitation: Discretion only for narrow, enumerated matters such as selecting a Chief Minister when no clear majority exists.
- Bound by Cabinet advice: Governor must act on ministerial advice in all matters except those explicitly labelled as discretionary.
- No independent executive authority: Ambedkar insisted the Governor is not a parallel power centre.
- Rejection of 1935 model: The Assembly refused to revive the 1935 system that gave Governors sweeping independent powers.
Why is the Bill-assent controversy central to this debate?
- Revival of 1935 practice: Members feared that powers like reserving Bills or withholding assent could allow Governors to obstruct State legislatures.
- Ambedkar’s key statement: “If you give him this power, he becomes exactly that”, a reminder that excessive discretion recreates colonial-style interference.
- Judicial scrutiny: Recent court rulings criticised Governors for delaying Bills, stating this undermines democratic functioning.
- Legislative consequences: When Governors withhold or delay assent, elected governments face administrative paralysis.
What makes the present dispute constitutionally serious?
- Misinterpretation risk: Courts observed that vague phrases like “as soon as possible” allow Governors to delay decisions indefinitely.
- Threat to federal balance: Unchecked gubernatorial discretion shifts power from elected representatives to a nominated authority.
- Growing political tensions: Several States report prolonged delays in Bill assent, appointments, and emergency decisions.
- Return of the ‘interfering authority’: The trend contradicts the original constitutional vision and Ambedkar’s categorical warnings.
Conclusion
The ongoing friction between State governments and Governors signals a deeper constitutional challenge involving federalism, democratic accountability, and the limits of nominated authority. The Constituent Assembly clearly intended the Governor to be a neutral head bound by Cabinet advice, not an autonomous decision-maker. Reviving this original spirit is essential to restore the balance between the Centre and the States and uphold constitutional morality.
Governor vs. State
What will mean for Chandigarh if it is brought under Article 240
Introduction
Chandigarh is a Union Territory that also serves as the shared capital of Punjab and Haryana. The Governor of Punjab currently holds additional charge as the Administrator of Chandigarh. The proposal to place Chandigarh under Article 240 of the Constitution may allow the Centre to appoint an independent Administrator and frame regulations for Chandigarh without relying on state mechanisms. The move carries political, administrative, and federal ramifications, especially for Punjab and Haryana.
Why in the news?
Bringing Chandigarh under Article 240 could give the Centre sweeping legislative and administrative powers over the Union Territory, including the ability to repeal or amend laws applicable to Chandigarh through Parliament or Presidential regulations. This marks a sharp departure from the existing model, where Punjab’s Governor also administers Chandigarh. The move could influence bureaucratic control, fiscal provisions, and power distribution among Punjab, Haryana, and the Centre, making the stakes exceptionally high.
What is Article 240?
|
Chandigarh’s current administrative arrangement
-
Shared capital system: Chandigarh serves as the capital of both Punjab and Haryana.
-
Additional charge: The Governor of Punjab functions as the Administrator of Chandigarh.
-
UT governance limitations: Chandigarh lacks its own Legislative Assembly.
What Article 240 enables
-
Sweeping Central authority: The President can make regulations for peace, progress, and good government for UTs.
-
Regulatory override: Any law applicable to Chandigarh can be repealed or amended via Parliamentary legislation.
-
Direct central rule template: Similar model followed in Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Daman & Diu, Puducherry (when its Assembly is dissolved/suspended).
Implications if Chandigarh is brought under Article 240
-
Independent Administrator: No additional charge by Punjab Governor; Centre appoints directly.
-
Bureaucratic restructuring: Large administrative staff of Punjab and Haryana currently posted in Chandigarh may face institutional and coordination changes.
-
Legislative possibilities: May enable eventual Legislative Assembly for Chandigarh in the future.
-
Greater Central oversight: Budgetary and policy matters would fall more firmly under Union control.
-
Concerns raised: Critics fear this would give excessive control to the Centre.
Arguments that the move benefits Chandigarh
-
Clear autonomy: Reduced administrative overlap from two states.
-
Institutional accountability: A dedicated Administrator creates faster decision-making.
-
Long-term governance clarity: Removes ambiguity caused by shared capital model.
Previous administrative attempts
-
1984 attempt: Proposal to appoint an independent Administrator linked to counter-terror coordination; Punjab was under President’s Rule.
-
2016 attempt: Opposition arose due to the practice of Punjab Governor holding Administrator’s charge.
Conclusion
Placing Chandigarh under Article 240 reflects a significant recalibration of Centre-State dynamics. While the move promises administrative clarity and efficiency, it raises questions of federal balance and the political stakes of Punjab and Haryana. The issue remains a critical case-study in Indian federalism, constitutional design, and UT governance.
PYQ Relevance
[UPSC 2024] What changes has the Union Government recently introduced in the domain of Centre-State relations? Suggest measures to be adopted to build the trust between the Centre and the States and for strengthening federalism.
Linkage: The question reflects the recent shift in Centre-State power balance through greater Union control in administrative, fiscal and institutional domains. It links directly with debates like Chandigarh under Article 240, Governor-State tensions, GST Council dynamics and UT re-organisation, core themes of Indian federalism in GS-II.
Governor vs. State
Presidential Reference on Governors & State Bills (2025)
Why in the news?
Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, on November 23, 2025, clarified the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion in the 2025 Presidential Reference regarding timelines for Governors and the President in granting assent to State Bills.
What is a Presidential Reference?
CJI Gavai emphasised that the advisory opinion is not a judicial review judgment. |
Background:
Tamil Nadu Governor Case (April 8 Judgment) The April 8, 2025 Supreme Court judgment held:
- Governors/President must act on pending Bills within 3 months,
- Or else the Bill would be “deemed to have received assent”.
This introduced a judicially created timeline not explicitly present in the Constitution. This triggered the Presidential Reference seeking clarity.
Supreme Court’s Advisory Opinion (November 20, 2025)
A five-judge Bench led by CJI Gavai issued the following clarifications:
a) No Mandatory Timeline: The Constitution does not prescribe specific timelines for Governors or the President. Judiciary cannot read timelines into the Constitution.
b) “Reasonable Period” Standard: Governors and President must act within a “reasonable period”. However, the Court did not define what constitutes “reasonable”.
c) No Endless Delay: Governors cannot sit indefinitely on Bills. Courts may exercise limited judicial review in extreme delay cases.
d) Context Matters: Routine Bills → 1 month may be reasonable. Bills related to internal/external emergency → may require more time.
Key Constitutional Provisions InvolvedArticle 200 – Governor’s options on State Bills
Article 201 – President’s powers over reserved Bills
Article 143 – Presidential Reference
Why is this Important for UPSC Prelims?This case clarifies the separation of powers, federalism, and the role of constitutional authorities. Prelims often tests:
Other Key Statements by CJI Gavai (Factual Highlights)a) Advisory Opinion vs Judgment: Advisory opinion cannot overturn a judgment. b) Judiciary–Executive Relations: CJI rejected the idea that “friction” is necessary between judiciary and government. c) Judicial Independence: A judge’s independence is not measured by ruling against the government. d) High Court Judge Transfers: Transfers made for administrative reasons and sometimes due to complaints after verification. e) Personal Note: CJI forgave a lawyer who threw an object at him: “It’s how I was brought up.”
|
Governor vs. State
SC clarifies Governor’s powers: How SC answered 14 questions President posed
Introduction
The Supreme Court’s opinion on the President’s 14 queries recalibrates the balance between Raj Bhavan and elected state governments. It ends the uncertainty around “pocket veto”, clarifies that gubernatorial discretion is narrow, and rejects any judicial power to impose timelines on constitutional authorities. The ruling is significant because it formalises procedural discipline without enabling judicial overreach, and reveals continued ambiguity that may trigger future litigation.
Why in the news?
The Supreme Court delivered a rare and highly consequential opinion under Article 143, addressing 14 constitutional doubts raised by the President regarding the Governor’s powers on Bills, aid and advice, delay, and discretion. It is a big development because the Court categorically ruled out the Governor’s “pocket veto”, reaffirmed that discretion is exceptional, not routine, and clarified that the judiciary cannot impose procedural timelines on constitutional posts. This marks a striking departure from previous ambiguities in Centre-State relations and reopens debate on federal accountability.
What constitutional options are available to a Governor when a Bill is presented?
- Four Constitutional Options: Return the Bill, reserve it for the President, assent, or withhold assent; these options arise strictly from Article 200.
- Bar on Pocket Veto: The ruling prohibits an indefinite delay, emphasising that constitutional silence cannot be exploited to stall legislation.
- Return of Bill Allowed Only Once: The Governor cannot repeatedly send the same Bill back once the House re-passes it.
- No Withhold After Re-passage: Once the legislature re-adopts a Bill, the Governor must assent, ensuring legislative primacy.
Is the Governor bound by aid and advice of the Council of Ministers?
- Binding Advice Rule: Aid and advice are mandatory except in constitutionally specified discretionary functions.
- No Unfettered Discretion: The Governor’s disagreement with political outcomes does not justify refusing advice.
- Improper Refusal: The Court held that a Governor cannot withhold assent simply because a new government would not prefer the Bill.
Are the Governor’s discretionary powers unlimited?
- Narrow Discretion: Discretion is “exceptional”, not a general supervisory authority over the legislature.
- Subjective Satisfaction Allowed Only for President’s Reservation: Under Article 200, the Governor may reserve a Bill if doubts on constitutionality exist.
- Judicial Review Retained: Reserving a Bill on irrelevant grounds is open to legal challenge.
- Discretion Must Meet Constitutional Purpose: Decisions must align with constitutional morality, not political preference.
Can timelines be imposed on Governors or the President?
- No Judicially Enforceable Deadlines: The Court cannot prescribe rigid timelines because the Constitution does not contain them.
- Institutional Respect Principle: Judiciary recognises the separation of powers and avoids issuing operational directives to constitutional authorities.
- Practical Concern Highlighted: While Governors should act “reasonably expeditiously”, this remains non-justiciable.
Are actions under Article 200 justiciable?
- Yes, on Limited Grounds: Courts may intervene if the Governor acts on irrelevant considerations or violates constitutional limits.
- Reasonableness Standard Applies: Judicial review ensures the Governor does not misuse constitutional silence to stall governance.
- Invalid Withholding Possible: A Governor withholding assent after re-passage would be unconstitutional and challengeable.
Can a Governor substitute his decision with the President’s under Article 201?
- Permissible Only for Constitutionality Doubts: The Governor may reserve Bills only when genuine constitutional issues arise.
- No Arbitrary Referral: Relying on the President for policy disagreements is unconstitutional.
Can courts adjudicate contents of Bills?
- Judicial Review Limited: Courts cannot examine legislative content before enactment except for exceptional situations.
- No Pre-Enactment Censorship: Validity can be tested only after the Bill becomes law.
- Reiterates Separation of Powers: Judiciary cannot intrude into legislative functioning.
Can the President exercise constitutional powers in place of the Governor under Article 142?
- Court Rejects the Assumption: No constitutional fiction allows the President to step into the Governor’s role.
- Limits to Article 142: It cannot rewrite constitutional architecture.
Conclusion
The opinion reaffirms constitutional restraint, narrows gubernatorial discretion, disallows “pocket vetoes”, strengthens legislative sovereignty, and emphasises judicial non-interference in executive timelines. Yet the Court’s hesitation to set procedural limits leaves space for future litigation, signalling continuing tensions in Indian federalism.
PYQ Relevance
[UPSC 2022] 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.
Linkage: This PYQ is directly relevant as the latest SC Article 143 opinion clarifies the Governor’s narrow legislative powers and rejects misuse like delay or withholding assent. It links to the issue of constitutional propriety, making re-promulgation without placing ordinances before the legislature clearly unconstitutional.
Governor vs. State
SC advisory on Presidential Reference on Governors’ timelines
Why In The News?
The Supreme Court will issue an advisory opinion on a Presidential Reference questioning its authority to impose timelines and prescribe procedures for Governors and the President when handling State Bills sent for assent or consideration.
1) About the Judgement:
- Scheduled Advisory Opinion: The Supreme Court is set to deliver its advisory opinion on a Presidential Reference questioning whether the Court can impose timelines and procedures for Governors and the President when dealing with State Bills.
- Bench’s Position: The five-judge Bench led by CJI B.R. Gavai held that the Court cannot remain inactive if a constitutional authority fails to perform its duties.
- Political–Federal Context: The matter arises amid friction between Opposition-ruled States and Governors, with delays in assenting to key State legislation.
- April 8 Judgment Trigger: The reference stems from the Supreme Court’s April 8 judgment that imposed a three-month deadline on Governors and the President to act on Bills.
- Impact on Governance: The Court ruled that Governors cannot impede governance by indefinitely withholding action on welfare legislation.
- Union Government’s Objection: The Centre argued that the April 8 ruling creates a “one-size-fits-all” approach that may be inappropriate given the varied nature of Bills.
- Argument on Judicial Overreach: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended that the Court cannot assume legislative functions by compelling Governors to grant assent through mandamus.
2) Presidential Reference Under Article 143:
- Meaning and Scope: Article 143 allows the President to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance.
- Article 143(1) – Optional Opinion: The Supreme Court may accept or decline to answer references under this clause. Example: refusal in the 1993 Ram Janmabhoomi reference.
- Article 143(2) – Mandatory Opinion: For disputes involving pre-Constitution treaties or agreements, the Court must render its opinion.
- Nature of Advice: The advisory opinion is not binding on the President but carries significant legal authority.
- Bench Requirement: Article 145(3) mandates that a minimum five-judge Bench must hear Presidential References.
- Historical Origins: The power originates from the Government of India Act, 1935. Comparative jurisdictions: Canada accepts advisory opinions; the U.S. does not.
- Past References: About 15 previous references include the Delhi Laws Act (1951), Kerala Education Bill (1958), Berubari (1960), Keshav Singh (1965), Presidential Poll case (1974), Third Judges Case (1998).
- Key Question in Present Reference: Whether courts can impose timelines on Governors/President that are not expressly provided in Articles 200 and 201, and whether Article 142 enables the Court to frame such directions.
- Limit on Overturning Judgments: As held in the 1991 Cauvery decision, Article 143 cannot be used to review or overturn settled Supreme Court judgments.
- Constitutional Significance: The reference may clarify the constitutional roles of the President/Governors, promote federal balance, and remove procedural ambiguities.
- Challenges of the Advisory Process: Advice is nonbinding, references may become politicized, “public importance” is undefined, and there is no timeline for the Court to respond.
3) Relevant Constitutional Provisions & Case Law on Governors’ Powers to reserve state bills:
- Article 200 – Governor’s Options: The Governor may assent, withhold assent with reasons, return a non-Money Bill once, or reserve the Bill for the President. Upon reconsideration and re-passage, the Governor must assent.
- Article 201 – President’s Options: The President may assent, withhold assent, or return a non-Money Bill; unlike the Governor, the President is not bound even if the Bill is re-passed.
- No Absolute or Pocket Veto: The Supreme Court held in the 2023 Tamil Nadu case that Governors cannot exercise a pocket veto; “as soon as possible” implies reasonable promptness.
- Restriction on Reserving Bills: After a Bill is re-passed without amendments, the Governor must assent; it cannot be reserved again unless the content has changed.
- Aid and Advice Principle: The Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers except in limited situations concerning High Court or Supreme Court powers.
- Judicial Timelines and Reviewability: The Supreme Court imposed definitive timelines for Governor’s action under Article 200 and held that inaction is subject to judicial review.
| [UPSC 2012] Question: Which of the following are the discretionary powers given to the Governor of a State?
1. Sending a report to the President of India for imposing the President’s rule 2. Appointing the Ministers 3. Reserving certain bills passed by the State Legislature for consideration of the President of India 4. Making the rules to conduct the business of the State Government Select the correct answer using the code given below: Options: (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 1 and 3 only* (c) 2, 3 and 4 only (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4 |
Governor vs. State
[18th September 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: A judicial nudge following stuck legislative business
PYQ Relevance:UPSC 2022: 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. Linkage: The recent Supreme Court directive fixing a timeline for Governors under Article 200 directly relates to the constitutional limits on gubernatorial powers discussed in the 2022 question. Both highlight that the Governor, as a constitutional head, must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and not misuse discretion to stall legislation. Just as re-promulgation of ordinances undermines legislative supremacy, withholding assent indefinitely violates constitutional morality and federal balance. |
Mentor’s Comment:
The recent Supreme Court intervention fixing a time limit for Governors and the President to act on Bills marks a constitutional milestone. This decision is not merely about timelines but about strengthening federalism, ensuring legislative efficacy, and curbing misuse of gubernatorial discretion. For UPSC aspirants, it becomes a vital case study in Centre-State relations, separation of powers, and the evolving role of the judiciary in sustaining democracy.
Introduction
The Supreme Court’s decision to prescribe a three-month time limit for Governors and the President to take a final call on Bills under Article 200/201 has reignited debates on federalism, separation of powers, and the scope of judicial activism. For decades, Governors have been accused of sitting indefinitely on Bills, creating a legislative deadlock and undermining the democratic will of elected legislatures. This judicial nudge aims to resolve what has become a serious constitutional anomaly, ensuring that governance does not remain hostage to political manoeuvring.
Why is this in the news?
The issue is significant because, for the first time, the Supreme Court has imposed a specific timeline—three months—for Governors and the President to act on Bills, despite the Constitution prescribing none. This intervention arose after repeated instances where Governors withheld assent or simply delayed action on Bills for years, undermining legislative functioning. The decision is both a remedy for constitutional paralysis and a reinforcement of federal balance, making it a landmark moment in India’s constitutional journey.
Judicial clarity on Article 200:
- Four options under Article 200: Assent to the Bill, withhold assent, return the Bill for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President.
- No discretion intended: The omission of the words “in his discretion” (present in Government of India Act, 1935, Section 75) shows the Constituent Assembly wanted Governors to act only on aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
- Judicial commissions’ stand: Both Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions reiterated that Governors are constitutional heads, not independent power centres.
Has the Governor misused discretionary powers?
- Contradictory judicial stance: While Shamsher Singh (1974) acknowledged discretionary scope, later judgments including Nabam Rebia (2016) and Tamil Nadu Governor case (2025) rejected such independence.
- Risk of overreach: Allowing Governors unilateral discretion would convert them into “super constitutional authorities,” stalling state governance.
- Expert view: D.D. Basu highlighted that unlike UK sovereigns, Indian Governors have no scope for withholding assent independently.
Why did the Supreme Court fix a timeline?
- Legislative paralysis: Governors had sat on Bills for years without decision, blocking governance.
- Judicial remedy: By fixing three months, the Court ensured smooth functioning of legislatures, akin to how Article 21’s scope was expanded through judicial interpretation in Maneka Gandhi.
- Federal protection: Recent rulings in State of Punjab v. Governor (2023) and State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor (2025) strengthened states’ autonomy, preventing misuse of gubernatorial office.
Could the Union have intervened earlier?
- Role under Article 355: The Union is duty-bound to ensure constitutional governance in states. A Governor blocking Bills indefinitely amounts to violation of constitutional provisions.
- Non-intervention so far: Successive Union governments avoided directing Governors, leading to judicial stepping in.
- Judicial nudge as necessity: The Court’s ruling acts as a constitutional guardrail in absence of executive remedy.
Implications for federalism and democracy
- Strengthening federal balance: Prevents Governors from acting as political agents of the Centre.
- Judicial activism or necessity?: Critics see it as judicial overreach, but history shows courts often expand constitutional meaning to meet new realities (e.g., Article 21 due process).
- Legislative efficiency: Restores faith in elected assemblies’ authority, ensuring people’s mandate is not subverted.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s directive to Governors and the President is a pragmatic response to a constitutional vacuum. It plugs misuse, safeguards federalism, and ensures legislative efficiency. Far from amending the Constitution, it exemplifies how judicial interpretation adapts constitutional principles to emerging challenges. This marks a significant moment where judicial innovation has strengthened democracy by preventing paralysis of governance.
Governor vs. State
Appointment of Vice Chancellors by Governor
Why in the News?
A recent controversy arose in Kerala, where the Governor (ex-officio Chancellor of State Universities) urged the Supreme Court to exclude the Chief Minister from the process of selecting Vice-Chancellors (VCs).
Who is the Vice-Chancellor?
- Position: Serves as Principal Academic and Executive Officer of the university.
- Functions: Bridges executive and academic wings; ensures compliance with Acts, Statutes, and Regulations.
- Authority: Chairs key bodies such as the Executive Council, Academic Council, Finance Committee, and Selection Committees.
- Qualities Emphasized: Historical commissions (Radhakrishnan 1948, Kothari 1964–66, Gnanam 1990, Ramlal Parikh 1993) stressed academic excellence, administrative skill, integrity, and vision.
- Significance: Maintains quality, relevance, and reform in higher education.
About the Role of Governor and President in Universities:
- State Universities:
- Chancellor’s Position: The Governor is ex-officio Chancellor, functioning independently of the State Cabinet in university matters.
- VC Appointment: As per UGC Regulations, 2018, the Chancellor appoints Vice-Chancellors from a panel recommended by a Search-cum-Selection Committee.
- Legal Supremacy: In conflicts between UGC regulations and State laws, UGC norms prevail under Article 254 of the Constitution.
- Central Universities:
- Visitor Role: The President of India is the Visitor under the Central Universities Act, 2009.
- Chancellor: A ceremonial head, appointed by the President.
- VC Appointment: The President selects from a panel suggested by a Search Committee and can demand a fresh panel if unsatisfied.
- Oversight Powers: The President can authorize inspections and inquiries into universities.
| [UPSC 2014] Which of the following are the discretionary powers given to the Governor of a State?
1. Sending a report to the President of India for imposing the President’s rule 2. Appointing the Ministers 3. Reserving certain bills passed by the State Legislature for consideration of the President of India 4. Making the rules to conduct the business of the State Government Select the correct answer using the code given below: Options: (a) a) 1 and 2 only (b) b) 1 and 3 only (c) c) 2, 3 and 4 only (d) d) 1, 2, 3 and 4 |
Governor vs. State
Should SC sit powerless as Governors block Bills: CJI
Introduction
The Supreme Court recently questioned whether it should remain passive when Governors indefinitely withhold assent to Bills, stalling elected legislatures. This issue, highlighted by Tamil Nadu’s Bills pending for four years, raises fundamental questions about judicial review, federalism, and democratic accountability.
Why in the News
Tamil Nadu’s unprecedented case of Bills pending for years has brought the Governor’s discretionary powers under sharp scrutiny. The Supreme Court’s April 8 judgment imposing time limits on Governors is now contested by the Union as judicial overreach, sparking a crucial debate on separation of powers.
Why does the role of Governors come under scrutiny
- Governor’s Inaction: Governors, appointed by the Union, are integral to State legislatures, yet their indefinite withholding of Bills undermines State autonomy.
- Tamil Nadu Example: Crucial Bills remained pending for nearly four years without reasons being communicated, sparking judicial concern.
- Democratic Will Thwarted: Prolonged silence from Governors makes elected legislatures ineffective.
How has the Supreme Court responded
- CJI’s Question: Should the Court suspend its role as custodian of the Constitution while Governors block Bills indefinitely?
- Judicial Review Precedent: The Court has struck down even constitutional amendments (e.g., 42nd Amendment) that sought to limit judicial review.
- Concern of Vacuum: Justice P.S. Narasimha highlighted the risk of Bills hanging in limbo without timelines.
What is the Union Government’s stand
- Encroachment Argument: Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta argued the Court’s April 8 order intruded into law-making, undermining Governors and the President.
- Political Resolution: Inaction, according to the Union, should be resolved politically, not judicially.
- Governor’s Unique Role: Unlike statutory authorities, Governors hold sui generis constitutional status, not bound by timelines.
Why is the tussle between judiciary and executive significant
- Separation of Powers: Union argues judiciary must not micro-manage executive discretion.
- Checks and Balances: CJI asserted that unchecked gubernatorial delay undermines democracy, and the Court cannot abdicate review.
- Democratic Accountability: Legislators face people every five years; Governors do not. Hence judicial review is necessary.
What are the implications for federalism
- Centre–State Tensions: Delays fuel mistrust between States and the Union.
- Judicial Intervention: Without court oversight, States may face legislative logjams.
- Limited Litigation: Union argues only “two or three States” have complained, but the principle has pan-India significance.
Way Forward: A structured framework for assent is necessary to prevent legislative paralysis. The Supreme Court’s suggested timelines strike a balance between constitutional discretion and democratic accountability. Moving ahead, three steps are essential:
- Codifying Timelines: Parliament may consider amending the law or issuing guidelines to institutionalise clear deadlines.
- Ensuring Accountability: Governors must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, barring exceptional constitutional reasons.
- Judicial Oversight as Safeguard: Courts should step in only when gubernatorial inaction undermines constitutional morality, keeping political disputes largely within the legislative sphere.
Conclusion
Unchecked gubernatorial inaction risks turning elected assemblies powerless. While the Union calls for political remedies, the Court stresses its duty as constitutional guardian. The outcome will redefine the balance between State autonomy, judicial review, and the Governor’s role in India’s federal framework.
Value Addition |
Timeline for Governor’s action on billsWhile the Constitution of India doesn’t explicitly state a timeline, the Supreme Court has addressed the issue of delays in Governor’s assent, particularly in the context of recent conflicts between Governors and state governments. Based on a recent Supreme Court ruling (April 2025) and subsequent discussions, here’s a breakdown of the suggested timelines for the Governor’s actions on a Bill under Article 200 of the Constitution:
|
PYQ Relevance
[UPSC 2022] 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.
Linkage: This issue links directly with the 2022 UPSC question as both highlight the constitutional checks on the Governor’s legislative powers. The re-promulgation of ordinances without legislative approval undermines democratic accountability. Hence, examining Governor’s ordinance powers is central to debates on federalism and executive overreach.
Governor vs. State
A lofty concept, a Governor and unwanted controversy
Why in the News?
A big controversy has started in Kerala after the Governor put up a picture of ‘Bharat Mata’ in an official room at the Raj Bhavan, leading to a clash between the Governor and the elected state government.
What is the origin and evolution of the Bharat Mata image?
|
What is the Governor’s role in relation to decisions of the elected state government?
- Constitutional Head: The Governor is the nominal head of the state and must act based on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, as per Article 163 of the Constitution. For instance, decisions on official functions, such as placing portraits or symbols, must follow government directions.
- No Independent Decision-Making Power: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar clarified in the Constituent Assembly that the Governor has “no functions which he can discharge by himself.” In the Kerala case, the Governor unilaterally placing the Bharat Mata picture at state events goes against this principle.
- Bound by Constitutional Protocols: The Supreme Court has held in multiple judgments (e.g., Nabam Rebia case, 2016) that the Governor cannot act at his discretion in routine matters. Thus, any deviation from official protocol, such as conducting ceremonies with unauthorised symbols, breaches constitutional norms.
How does the Bharat Mata image controversy highlight tension between constitutional norms and cultural nationalism?
- Lack of Constitutional Recognition: The image of Bharat Mata is not recognised by the Constitution like the national flag, emblem, or anthem. Including it in official state functions challenges the principle of secularism and constitutional symbolism, which mandates state neutrality in public symbolism.
- Political and Ideological Association: The specific depiction used by the Governor—a woman in saffron with a lion—is commonly linked to“right-wing outfits”, making it a cultural nationalist representation rather than a universally accepted national symbol. Its use in state ceremonies risks the blurring of state and ideological lines.
- Violation of Democratic Protocol: The elected state government objected to the image’s presence, arguing that no unilateral decision can override collective democratic authority. This reflects the friction between constitutional propriety and the personal or ideological preferences of a constitutional functionary.
Can the Governor act independently in this case?
|
How should officials balance personal beliefs with constitutional values? (Way forward)
- Adhere to constitutional obligations over personal ideology – Public officials must act in line with constitutional principles like secularism, equality, and neutrality while performing official duties. For instance, a Governor should follow government protocol during official functions rather than promoting symbols not recognised by the Constitution.
- Separate personal practices from public conduct – While officials are free to hold personal beliefs, they must not impose them in public institutions or state functions. Eg An officer may privately revere a religious symbol but should avoid displaying it in a government office to maintain inclusivity.
Mains PYQ:
[UPSC 2022] Are tolerance, assimilation and pluralism the key elements in the making of an Indian form of secularism? Justify your answer.
Linkage: The controversy surrounding the display of a specific picture of Bharat Mata highlights a tension with the “strong secular core” and “inclusive” nature of Indian nationalism. This question explores the principles of Indian secularism, which are central to understanding the debate over how such a concept should be represented and integrated into official functions in a diverse society.
Governor vs. State
Diving into SC’s verdict on Governors
Why in the News?
On April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court settled a long-standing issue between the Governor of Tamil Nadu and the state’s government and Legislative Assembly.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Tamil Nadu Governor’s delay in assenting to Bills?
- No “Pocket Veto” by Governor: The Court ruled the Governor cannot indefinitely withhold assent to Bills passed by the State Legislature. Eg: The Governor delayed action on ten Bills for years without justification.
- Governor Must Act Timely: The Governor must either assent, return, or refer the Bills to the President within reasonable time. Eg: The Court stated the Governor should act on the Bills, not delay them.
- Article 142 Used to Declare Bills Law: Due to the delay, the Court invoked Article 142 to deem the Bills as law. Eg: The Tamil Nadu government notified the Acts as law following the Court’s decision.
Why did the Court use Article 142 to declare the Bills as law?
- Prolonged Delay by the Governor: The Court found that the Governor had unjustifiably delayed action on the Bills for years, violating the constitutional principles of federalism and representative democracy. Eg: The Governor kept the Bills pending for an extended period without offering valid reasons, causing a constitutional impasse.
- Ensuring Justice and Upholding Democracy: The Court invoked Article 142 to do “complete justice” by respecting the will of the elected representatives of the State Legislative Assembly, thus protecting the democratic process. Eg: The Court deemed the Bills passed by the Legislature as law to ensure that the legislative intent of the people’s representatives was not thwarted.
- Constitutional Vacuum and Remedy: Since the Constitution did not specify a time limit for the Governor’s action, the Court stepped in to remedy the situation, ensuring the Bills were not indefinitely stalled. Eg: The Tamil Nadu government immediately notified the Acts as law after the Court’s intervention, rectifying the Governor’s delay.
When is the Governor constitutionally allowed to refer a Bill to the President?
- When the Bill is Inconsistent with Central Law: The Governor can refer a Bill to the President if it conflicts with existing central laws or raises constitutional issues requiring the President’s decision. Eg: A Bill that contradicts a central law on the same subject matter may be referred to the President for approval.
- When the Governor Has Doubts on the Bill’s Constitutionality: If the Governor has constitutional concerns regarding a Bill, they can refer it to the President for further consideration, especially if it involves matters outside the state’s jurisdiction. Eg: A Bill that encroaches on the powers reserved for the Union can be referred to the President for a final decision.
Which constitutional flaw did the Court aim to rectify through this judgment?
- Lack of Clear Guidelines for Governor’s Action: The Constitution did not specify clear timelines or procedures for the Governor in handling State Bills, leaving room for delays and misuse of power. Eg: The Governor of Tamil Nadu delayed assent to Bills for years, exploiting the absence of a specific time frame for action.
- Absence of Safeguards Against Governor’s Arbitrary Power: The Constitution did not explicitly limit the Governor’s power to withhold assent or exercise a pocket veto, leading to potential abuse and undermining the democratic process. Eg: The Governor’s delay in assenting to ten Bills without any constitutional justification prompted the Court’s intervention.
- Weakness in Protecting Federalism and Legislative Authority: The lack of specific checks on the Governor’s actions threatened the principles of federalism and undermined the autonomy of the State Legislative Assembly. Eg: By indefinitely stalling the Bills, the Governor weakened the power of the elected State Legislature, which led the Court to act to preserve federalism.
Who is responsible for upholding constitutional conventions to protect federalism?
- The Executive (Governor and Chief Minister): Both the Governor, as the representative of the President, and the Chief Minister, as the head of the state government, must respect constitutional conventions to ensure the smooth functioning of federalism and maintain the balance of power between the Centre and States. Eg: The Governor’s undue delay in assenting to Bills disrupted the federal balance and called for judicial intervention.
- The Legislature (State Legislative Assembly): The elected representatives in the State Legislature must ensure that the legislative process adheres to constitutional conventions, fostering federal cooperation and preventing undue interference by the Centre. Eg: The Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed Bills that reflected the will of the people, but faced obstruction due to Governor’s delays, highlighting the need for constitutional respect.
- The Judiciary: The judiciary plays a crucial role in upholding constitutional conventions when other branches fail to act appropriately. The Supreme Court intervenes when there is a violation of constitutional principles like federalism and when executive or legislative actors overstep their bounds. Eg: The Supreme Court used Article 142 to declare the Tamil Nadu Bills as law, rectifying the constitutional flaw in the Governor’s inaction and protecting federalism.
Way forward:
- Clarify Constitutional Procedures: There is a need for clear constitutional guidelines and timeframes for Governors to act on State Bills, reducing ambiguity and preventing delays that undermine federalism. This could involve amendments or judicial directions for timely decision-making.
- Strengthen Checks on Executive Power: Strengthening safeguards against arbitrary use of powers by the Governor through legal reforms and accountability measures can ensure that the democratic process and legislative authority of states are respected.
Mains PYQ:
[UPSC 2022] 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.
Linkage: The Supreme Court’s 2025 verdict addressed the limits of the Governor’s power regarding assent to bills, effectively preventing the use of a “pocket veto”. This context makes the 2022 question relevant as it explores other aspects of the Governor’s legislative role and the need for accountability to the state legislature.
Governor vs. State
History and Evolution of the Office of Governor
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Evolution of the Office of Governor
Why in the News?
The recent Supreme Court verdict on the powers of the President and Governors regarding assent to Bills under Articles 201 and 200 highlights the evolution of the office of the Governor and its changing role in India’s federal structure.
Evolution of the Office of Governor:
- Formal Establishment (1858): The office of the Governor was established under the Government of India Act of 1858, which transitioned administration from the East India Company to the British Crown. Governors acted as agents of the Crown and had significant powers in provincial administration.
- Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms (1919): The GoI Act of 1919, under the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, aimed to increase Indian participation but kept the Governor central to governance, including vetoing Bills passed by legislative councils.
- GoI Act of 1935: The GoI Act of 1935 gave provincial autonomy but retained the Governor’s discretionary powers, including vetoing Bills and withholding assent, signalling a transition toward more autonomy while maintaining significant Governor authority.
- Post-Independence Transition (1947): As India moved toward independence, the India (Provisional Constitution) Order of 1947 modified the 1935 Act. It removed the phrase “in his discretion,” reducing the Governor’s discretionary powers and signalling a shift to a more symbolic and constitutional role.
- Constituent Assembly Debates: It debated whether Governors should be elected or nominated. Concerns over separatism led to the decision that Governors would be nominated by the President to maintain unity and strengthen ties with the Centre, especially after the partition.
- Post-Independence Framework: Before Independence, various documents and political proposals, including the Commonwealth India Bill (1925) and the Nehru Report (1928), supported retaining the office of the Governor, inspired by the Westminster model of governance.
Constitutional Role of the Governor:
- Article 163: The Governor acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister, except in certain discretionary situations.
- Ambedkar’s Views: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar advocated for limited use of discretionary powers, ensuring the Governor’s actions align with the advice of the ministers.
- Article 200: The Governor must grant assent to Bills, but may withhold assent, reserve the Bill for the President, or return it for reconsideration. Ambedkar amended this in 1949 to ensure the Governor acts in alignment with the elected government.
- Symbolic and Impartial Role: The Governor is expected to represent the Union, support democratic functioning, and remain non-interfering in day-to-day state affairs.
- Discretionary Powers: The Governor’s discretion is limited to constitutional guidelines and should be used sparingly, ensuring the Governor’s role remains constitutional, not political.
| [UPSC 2017] In the context of Indian history, the-principle of ‘Dyarchy (diarchy)’ refers to:
(a) Division of the central legislature into two houses. (b) Introduction of double government i.e., Central and State governments. (c) Having two sets of rulers; one in London and another in Delhi. (d) Division of the subjects delegated to the provinces into two categories. * |
Governor vs. State
A Governor’s conduct and a judgment of significance
Why in the News?
In The State of Tamil Nadu vs. The Governor of Tamil Nadu and Another, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India, led by Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, reaffirmed that Governors’ powers are limited and must follow constitutional boundaries.
What constitutional issue was addressed in the Tamil Nadu vs the Governor case?
| Aspect | Details | Example |
| Limits of Gubernatorial Discretion (Article 200) | The Governor cannot withhold assent to a Bill indefinitely or act independently of the elected State Cabinet, except in constitutionally specified situations. The role is largely ceremonial. | Governor of Tamil Nadu withheld assent to 12 Bills, including those on the appointment of Vice-Chancellors to public universities. |
| Constitutional Obligations of the Governor and State Executive | The Governor is bound by the advice of the State Cabinet and cannot act on personal discretion unless explicitly permitted by the Constitution. This upholds representative democracy. | Governor delayed referrals to the President without valid reasons, thereby undermining the democratic function of the State Legislature. |
| Judicial Review of Governor’s Actions | Article 361 gives personal immunity to the Governor but does not shield official actions from judicial review. Courts can check if actions comply with the Constitution and democratic norms. | Supreme Court held that the Governor’s inaction violated the Constitution, and invoked Article 142 to deem the Bills as assented to, resolving the legislative deadlock. |
Why was the Governor’s inaction on Tamil Nadu Bills ruled unconstitutional?
- Violation of Constitutional Duty under Article 200: The Governor is constitutionally bound to either assent to a Bill, withhold assent (and return it for reconsideration), or reserve it for the President. Indefinitely sitting on Bills without any action violates this mandate. Eg: The Governor kept 10 re-enacted Bills pending without any action or justification, undermining the role of the legislature.
- Undermining the Principles of Representative Democracy: By not acting on duly passed Bills, the Governor disregarded the advice of the elected Council of Ministers, thereby disrupting the democratic process and the legislative will of the people. Eg: Despite the Tamil Nadu Assembly passing the Bills again in a special session, the Governor forwarded them to the President without consulting the State Cabinet, showing a lack of respect for democratic norms.
When can a Governor use discretion under Article 200?
- When a Bill Affects the Powers of the High Court: The second proviso to Article 200 allows the Governor to reserve a Bill that directly affects the powers of the High Court for the President’s consideration. Eg: If a State law tries to curtail the High Court’s jurisdiction or authority, the Governor can use discretion to reserve it.
- When Presidential Assent is Constitutionally Mandatory: If a Bill falls under categories where presidential assent is specifically required (such as laws under Article 31C that seek immunity from judicial review), the Governor may reserve it. Eg: A Bill claiming protection under Article 31C, linked to Directive Principles, must be reserved for the President.
- When a Bill Fundamentally Undermines Constitutional Values: The Governor can act without ministerial advice if the Bill threatens the basic structure or core values of the Constitution. Eg: A Bill that violates secularism or federalism in an extreme manner could justify the Governor’s discretionary action.
How did the Supreme Court invoke Article 142 to resolve the constitutional deadlock in the Tamil Nadu Bills case?
- Used Article 142 to Ensure Complete Justice: The Court exercised its special power under Article 142 to deliver complete justice by deeming the 10 re-enacted Bills as having received the Governor’s assent. Eg: Instead of waiting for further assent or action from the Governor, the Court directly validated the Bills to avoid further delays in governance.
- Bypassed Unworkable Remedies Like Mandamus: Issuing a writ of mandamus (to compel the Governor to act) was seen as ineffective since the Governor is protected from personal liability under Article 361. Eg: Since the Governor cannot be punished for contempt, the Court chose Article 142 as a more enforceable solution.
- Restored the Legislative Authority of the State: By invoking Article 142, the Court reinforced the principle that the Governor cannot override the will of an elected legislature through inaction Eg: This prevented indefinite delays in implementing laws passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly, thus preserving democratic functioning.
Why was issuing a writ of mandamus deemed inadequate?
- Governor is Immune Under Article 361: The Constitution grants the Governor personal immunity from legal proceedings while in office, making it difficult to enforce any court directive. Eg: Even if the Court issued a mandamus to compel assent or action, the Governor could not be held legally accountable for ignoring it.
- Mandamus Cannot Be Enforced Practically: Courts cannot force a Governor to exercise discretion in a particular way, only to consider doing so—making the remedy ineffective when deliberate inaction is involved. Eg: If the Governor simply delays action without giving reasons, courts have limited tools to compel a timely decision.
- Could Cause a Constitutional Standoff: Forcing the Governor through judicial direction risks undermining the separation of powers and could lead to a deadlock between constitutional authorities. Eg: If the Governor resists the court order, it could trigger a conflict between the judiciary and the executive, weakening the constitutional balance.
Way forward:
- Codify Time Limit for Assent: Amend the Constitution or enact a statutory framework to prescribe a reasonable time limit (eg: 30 days) within which the Governor must act on Bills to prevent indefinite delays.
- Enhance Legislative Oversight: Establish a mechanism for State Legislatures to seek judicial clarification or initiate review when the Governor delays action, reinforcing accountability and upholding democratic norms.
Mains PYQ:
[UPSC 2022] 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.
Linkage: This question directly addresses the legislative powers of the Governor, a key aspect of their conduct. The second part specifically asks about the legality of re-promulgation of ordinances, which can be a contentious issue and often involves judicial scrutiny. This relates to the constitutional limits on the Governor’s powers, similar to the issues raised in the article.
Governor vs. State
SC slams TN Governor, Fixes Time for Assent
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Mains level: Issues related to the Governor;
Why in the News?
The Supreme Court criticised Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi, calling his actions “unconstitutional.” The court said he did nothing for months about 10 important Bills, and then suddenly sent them to the President only after the State Assembly passed them again and the matter reached the court.
What did the SC rule on the TN Governor’s reservation of Bills for the President in Nov 2024?
- Action declared illegal: The Court ruled that the Governor’s act of reserving 10 Bills for the President after they were already reconsidered and passed again by the Tamil Nadu Assembly was unconstitutional. Eg: If a state legislature passes a Bill, and the Governor returns it, but the legislature passes it again, the Governor must either give assent or withhold it—he cannot send it to the President at that stage.
- Violation of Article 200: According to Article 200, a Bill can be reserved for the President only when it is first presented to the Governor—not after it is passed again following reconsideration. Eg: The Governor had no authority to reserve the 10 Bills in November 2024 because they had already been returned, reconsidered, and passed again.
- Presidential action also invalid: The Court held that since the Governor’s action was unconstitutional, any decision taken by the President based on that action is also invalid. Eg: Even if the President had accepted or rejected those Bills, it would not be valid because the referral itself was flawed.
Why did the SC invoke Article 142 to grant assent to the 10 Bills?
- Undue delay by the Governor: The Bills were kept pending for an excessively long time without any decision by the Governor, causing a constitutional deadlock. Eg: Some Bills were pending since January 2020, which hindered the functioning of the state legislature and governance.
- Violation of constitutional spirit and conventions: The Governor showed disregard for established constitutional conventions and the Supreme Court’s earlier rulings by not acting in a timely or respectful manner. Eg: The Court said the Governor displayed “scant respect” for constitutional procedures by withholding assent without valid reason.
- To ensure justice and restore balance: The Court used Article 142 (which allows it to do complete justice in any matter) to directly grant assent to the 10 Bills to break the impasse and uphold democratic functioning. Eg: Since the Governor failed in his duty, the Court stepped in to protect the will of the people as expressed through their elected legislature.
| Note: Article 142 of the Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power to pass any decree or order necessary to do “complete justice” in any case or matter pending before it, allowing it to transcend the limitations of existing laws and statutes. |
When can a Governor constitutionally reserve a Bill for the President’s consideration?
- Only at the first instance of presentation (Article 200): Under Article 200 of the Constitution, the Governor may reserve a Bill for the President only when it is presented to him for the first time. Eg: If a state Assembly passes a Bill and the Governor receives it for the first time, he can reserve it for the President instead of giving or withholding assent.
- Not after Assembly reconsideration (Article 200 – First Proviso): If the Governor returns a Bill to the Assembly and it is re-passed (with or without changes), the Governor must act—either grant or withhold assent—and cannot reserve it again unless it is substantially changed. Eg: In the Tamil Nadu case, the Governor reserved the Bills after they were reconsidered by the Assembly, which the Supreme Court ruled was unconstitutional.
- Exception – If the Bill is materially different (Article 200 – Judicial Interpretation): If the Bill, after being reconsidered by the legislature, is substantially or materially different from the original, reservation may be allowed. Eg: If new provisions are added that affect national interest or conflict with Union laws, reservation might be justified, even after reconsideration.
How did the SC define the Governor’s expected role and conduct under the Constitution?
- Respect for Parliamentary Democracy and the Will of the Legislature: The Governor must act in accordance with the democratic spirit and not undermine the decisions of the elected legislature. Eg: Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) — The SC ruled that the Governor is a constitutional head and must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in specific situations.
- Facilitator, Not an Obstructionist: The Governor should enable smooth functioning of governance and not stall legislative processes. Eg: Samsher Singh case (1974) and reaffirmed in the 2024 SC ruling on Tamil Nadu Bills — The Court held that the Governor’s prolonged inaction amounted to a constitutional failure and disruption of state functioning.
- Bound by Constitutional Oath and Values:The Governor is duty-bound to uphold the Constitution and work for the welfare of the people. Eg: Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016) — The SC observed that the Governor must act within the “four corners” of the Constitution and not misuse discretionary powers.
Way forward:
- Time-bound Action Framework for Governors: A clear timeline should be laid down—either by Parliament or through judicial interpretation—for the Governor to act on Bills (assent, withhold, or reserve). Eg: A fixed period (like 4–6 weeks) can ensure that legislative processes are not indefinitely delayed, maintaining the balance between constitutional roles and democratic governance.
- Institutional Clarity and Accountability: The role and powers of the Governor should be revisited to reduce ambiguity and misuse of discretion. Regular communication protocols between the Governor’s office and the elected government can also be institutionalized. Eg: Like in the case of money Bills where the Governor has limited scope, similar clarity must be applied to regular Bills to avoid conflict or misuse.
Mains PYQ:
[UPSC 2018] Whether the Supreme Court Judgement (July 2018) can settle the political tussle between the Lt. Governor and elected government of Delhi? Examine.
Linkage: The broader theme of the relationship between an unelected head of state (or administrator) and an elected government in a democratic setup.
Governor vs. State
A look at how Article 361 provides immunity.
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Artile 361
Mains level: What are the provisions related to the Governor in the Indian Constitution?
Why in the News?
Even as a complaint alleging sexual harassment has been filed in Kolkata against West Bengal Governor C V Ananda Bose, Constitutional immunity bars the police from naming the Governor as an accused or even investigating the case.
What is Article 361?
Article 361 of the Constitution that deals with immunity to the President and the Governors states that they “shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties”.
The provision also has two crucial sub-clauses:
(1) that no criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be initiated or continued against the President, or the Governor of a State, in any court during the term of his office.
(2) No process for the arrest or imprisonment of the President, or the Governor of a State, shall issue from any court during his term of office.
Immunity power of the Governor:
- Ceases to be in office: The police can act only after the Governor ceases to be in office, which is when either the Governor resigns or no longer enjoys the confidence of the President.”
- Rameshwar Prasad v Union of India: In the landmark 2006 ruling in Rameshwar Prasad v Union of India, that outlined the immunity enjoyed by the Governor “even on allegation of personal malafides,” the Supreme Court held that “the position in law, is that the Governor enjoys complete immunity.”
- In 2017, criminal conspiracy in the 1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid case: The trial did not take place for former UP Chief Minister Kalyan Singh since he was then the Governor of Rajasthan.
Constitutional Provisions:
- Appointment: The Governor is appointed by the President of India and holds office during the pleasure of the President (Article 155).
- Qualifications: The Governor must be a citizen of India, must be at least 35 years old, and must not hold any office of profit (Article 157).
- Powers and Functions: The Governor is the constitutional head of a state and performs various functions including:
- Executive Functions: The Governor appoints the Chief Minister and other Council of Ministers, and allocates portfolios among them (Article 164).
- Legislative Functions: The Governor summons and prorogues the state legislature, addresses it, and lays down its policy. He/she also has the power to dissolve the Legislative Assembly (Article 174).
- Financial Functions: The Governor causes to be laid before the State Legislature the Annual Financial Statement (budget) and has powers related to money bills (Article 202).
- Discretionary Powers: The Governor has discretionary powers in certain matters, such as appointing the Chief Minister when no party has a clear majority after elections (Article 164).
- Relation with the Union: The Governor is appointed by the President and acts as a link between the state and the Union. He/she can send reports to the President regarding the administration of the state (Article 356).
- Oath or Affirmation: Before entering office, the Governor must take an oath or affirmation according to the form set out in the Third Schedule of the Constitution (Article 159).
Conclusion:
Article 361 of the Indian Constitution provides immunity to the President and Governors from court proceedings and arrest during their term. Police action against a Governor can only occur after they cease office.
Mains PYQ
Q 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.
Governor vs. State
What explains the frequent disagreements between state governments and Governors?
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: law on Governor-state relations
Mains level: Reason behind the Governor-state friction
Why in the news?
Allegations by the regional government (Recently Kerala govt.) on the Centre using the Governor’s position to destabilize state governments have been made since the 1950s. This calls for Governor-state relations.
What is the law on Governor-state relations?
- The Governor, although meant to be apolitical and act on the advice of the council of ministers, holds significant powers granted under the Constitution.
- These include giving or withholding assent to bills passed by the state legislature and determining the time needed for a party to prove its majority in cases of a hung verdict in an election.
- While the Constitution grants powers to the Governor, there are no specific provisions on how the Governor and the state government should publicly engage when there is a difference of opinion.
What have been the friction points in recent years?
- Controversial Actions: Some actions by governors have sparked controversy, such as dissolving assemblies amidst government formation discussions (Jammu and Kashmir), and inviting leaders without public consultation (Maharashtra) this government lasted just 80 hours. And Six months later, the Governor refused to nominate CM Uddhav Thackeray.
- Interference in State Affairs: Governors have been criticized for allegedly interfering in state affairs, including commenting on law and order situations (West Bengal), and refusing requests from state governments (Kerala) regarding legislative matters.
- Legal Challenges: Some decisions made by governors have faced legal challenges, such as the invitation to the BJP to form the government in Karnataka, which was challenged and subsequently modified by the Supreme Court.
Dismissal after independence:
- Dismissals in the 1950s: Allegations of the Centre using the Governor’s position to destabilize state governments date back to the 1950s. In 1959, Kerala’s E M S Namboodiripad government was dismissed based on a report by the Governor.
- Dismissals in the Post-1960s: Several state governments were dismissed between 1965 and 1990 through President’s Rule orders issued by Governors. These dismissals included governments such as Birender Singh in Haryana (1967), M Karunanidhi in Tamil Nadu (1976), and N T Rama Rao in Andhra Pradesh (1984).
- Decrease in Dismissals: The frequency of state government dismissals decreased during the coalition era at the Centre and the emergence of strong regional parties. This suggests a shift in political dynamics and possibly less direct interference by the Centre through Governors in state politics.
Causes of such Governor-State Frictions:
- Answerable only to the Centre: The Governor is not directly accountable to the people and is answerable only to the Centre.
- Appointment and Tenure: The Governor is appointed by the President on the Centre’s advice and holds office at the pleasure of the President. Although the tenure is typically five years
- Lack of Impeachment Provision: There is no provision for impeaching the Governor, further limiting mechanisms for holding them accountable.
- Absence of Guidelines: The Constitution does not provide clear guidelines for the exercise of the Governor’s powers, including the appointment of a Chief Minister or the dissolution of the Assembly. Additionally, there are no limits set for how long a Governor can withhold assent to a Bill, raising questions about arbitrary use of power.
- Governor as Agent of the Centre: The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution highlighted concerns that Governors may act in accordance with instructions from the Union Council of Ministers, leading to perceptions that they are “agents of the Centre.”
Reform suggested by the ARC of 1968 to the Sarkaria Commission of 1988:
- Selection Process: Establishing a panel consisting of the Prime Minister, Home Minister, Lok Sabha Speaker, and Chief Minister to select Governors.
- Fixed Tenure: Recommendations advocate for fixing the Governor’s tenure for five years.
- Impeachment Provision: Suggestions include introducing a provision to impeach the Governor by the State Assembly.
Conclusion: Governors often side with the central government and aren’t accountable enough. Kerala’s case shows a problem with the law. Proposed changes aim to make things clearer and fairer.
Mains PYQs
Q 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. (UPSC IAS/2022)
Q Whether the Supreme Court Judgement (July 2018) can settle the political tussle between the Lt. Governor and elected government of Delhi? Examine. (UPSC IAS/2018)
https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/state-government-governors-powers-disagreements-9240141/
Governor vs. State
Rescuing grace from disgrace
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: President and governor speeches
Mains level: the tradition of presidential and gubernatorial addresses to Parliament and Legislative Assemblies in India
Central Idea:
The article discusses the tradition of presidential and gubernatorial addresses to Parliament and Legislative Assemblies in India, highlighting the ceremonial and ritualistic nature of these events. It emphasizes the need for reform to streamline these addresses, suggesting a shift towards shorter, more concise speeches akin to the British practice, to save time and enhance efficiency in legislative proceedings.
Key Highlights:
- Presidential and gubernatorial addresses in India are steeped in tradition, characterized by elaborate ceremonies and rituals.
- The speeches are drafted by the government of the day, with little involvement from the heads of state, leading to lengthy and sometimes tiresome readings.
- Past presidents like R. Venkataraman and K.R. Narayanan exhibited meticulousness in reviewing draft speeches, suggesting improvements that were generally accepted.
- Similar experiences were observed at the state level, with governors making suggestions for changes to their addresses, sometimes leading to unexpected challenges.
- The article reflects on instances of political civility, where suggested changes were acknowledged and accommodated, despite time constraints.
- Despite the ceremonial nature of these addresses, controversy and turbulence in legislative assemblies have been on the rise, fueled by accusations and counter-accusations.
- The root cause of the problem lies in the disconnect between the writers and readers of these speeches, raising questions about ownership and relevance.
- The author proposes adopting a more concise format for these addresses, similar to the British model, to refocus attention on legislative business and mitigate political polarization.
Key Challenges:
- Resistance from governments accustomed to using these addresses as platforms to showcase their achievements and plans.
- Convincing stakeholders about the efficacy of shifting towards shorter, more focused speeches.
- Overcoming entrenched traditions and resistance to change within the political system.
- Balancing the ceremonial aspects of these addresses with the need for efficiency and relevance in legislative proceedings.
- Addressing political polarization between central and state governments, which may hinder collaborative efforts towards reform.
Main terms for answer quality enhancement:
- Presidential address
- Gubernatorial address
- Ceremonial
- Ritualistic
- Legislative proceedings
- Political polarization
- Tradition
- Efficiency
- Reform
Important Phrases:
- “Land of largely unquestioned custom, ceremonials, and rituals”
- “Suggesting changes by them difficult”
- “Saving of time and the avoiding of tedium”
- “Political civility”
- “Root of the problem”
- “Ornament of convention”
- “Collective body of legislators”
- “Innovative and self-denying Chief Minister”
Quotes:
- “When I am asked to read these Addresses, I feel like saying ‘Rashtrapati Bhavan’ and sitting down!” – R. Venkataraman
- “The speech was not mine, it was yours.” – Unnamed speaker to Nitish Kumar
- “Who Owns that Speech?” – Professor A.R. Venkatachalapathy
Anecdotes:
- R. Venkataraman’s meticulous review of draft speeches, despite tight timeframes.
- Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee’s prompt action to rectify an oversight in a gubernatorial address.
- The Governor of Bihar officiating a seamless legislative ceremony, earning appreciation from the Chief Minister.
Useful Statements for critical approach in answer writing:
- “The root of the problem lies in the foundational dichotomy of one agency writing the speech and another reading it.”
- “Presidents and Governors will, I think, be relieved with such a rearrangement.”
- “It will take an innovative and self-denying Chief Minister to start the reform to rescue a custom, ceremony, and ritual of grace from disgrace.”
Examples and References:
- Instances of past presidents and governors suggesting changes to draft speeches, with varying degrees of acceptance and acknowledgment.
- Comparison with the British practice of brief, outline-focused speeches by the head of state.
Facts and Data:
- Terms of past presidents and governors mentioned in the article (e.g., R. Venkataraman, K.R. Narayanan).
- References to specific events, such as the oversight in printing a gubernatorial address.
Critical Analysis:
- The article presents a nuanced critique of the ceremonial nature of presidential and gubernatorial addresses, highlighting inefficiencies and challenges.
- It underscores the importance of streamlining these addresses to enhance legislative efficiency and mitigate political polarization.
- The proposed reform aligns with the need for modernization and adaptation within the Indian political system.
Way Forward:
- Advocate for collaborative efforts among stakeholders to initiate reform and streamline the process of presidential and gubernatorial addresses.
- Emphasize the benefits of shorter, more focused speeches in enhancing legislative efficiency and relevance.
- Encourage political leaders to prioritize the collective interests of legislators and citizens over traditional ceremonies and rituals.
Governor vs. State
TN moves Supreme Court against Governor over Bill withholds
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Article 32, Legislative Powers of Governor
Mains level: State vs . Governor Row
Central Idea
- The Tamil Nadu state government has taken its concerns to the Supreme Court regarding the prolonged delay in the approval of Bills and Government orders by the Governor.
TN Petition to the Supreme Court
- Constitutional Challenge: The TN government has filed a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
- Objective: The petition seeks a declaration that the Governor’s inaction, omission, and delay in assenting to Bills and considering Government orders forwarded by the Tamil Nadu State Legislature is unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, and a misuse of power.
- Impact on Administration: The Governor’s delay in signing remission orders, day-to-day files, appointment orders, and granting approvals for prosecution is causing severe disruptions in the state administration.
Article 32 of Indian Constitution
|
What are the Discretionary Powers of the Governor?
The Constitution makes it clear that if any question arises whether a matter falls within the governor’s discretion or not, the decision of the governor is final and the validity of anything done by him cannot be called in question on the ground that he ought or ought not to have acted in his discretion.
Constitutional Discretion:
- Reservation of a bill for the consideration of the President (Article 200).
- Recommendation for the imposition of the President’s Rule (Article 356) in the state.
- While exercising his functions as the administrator of an adjoining union territory (in case of additional charge).
- Determining the amount payable by the Government of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram to an autonomous Tribal District Council as royalty accruing from licenses for mineral exploration.
- Seeking information from the chief minister with regard to the administrative and legislative matters of the state.
Situational Discretion:
- Appointment of chief minister when no party has a clear-cut majority in the state legislative assembly or when the chief minister in office dies suddenly and there is no obvious successor.
- Dismissal of the council of ministers when it cannot prove the confidence of the state legislative assembly.
- Dissolution of the state legislative assembly if the council of ministers has lost its majority.
Can the Governor withhold His Assent to a Bill in Exercise of His Discretionary Powers?
- While a plain reading of Article 200 suggests that the Governor can withhold his assent, experts question whether he can do so only on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
- The Constitution provides that the Governor can exercise his executive powers only on the advice of the Council of Ministers under Article 154.
- The larger question is why a Governor should be allowed to withhold assent when the Bill is passed by the Assembly.
Rationale behind Governor’s Power
- Checks and Balances: Delay in approval allows the Governor to scrutinize bills and orders more thoroughly, ensuring that they are in line with the constitution and the interests of the state.
- Prevention of Hasty Decisions: It prevents hasty or ill-considered legislation from being passed, which might have unintended negative consequences.
- Protection of Minority Rights: The Governor can act as a safeguard against the majority’s potentially oppressive decisions, protecting the rights and interests of minority groups.
- Aid to Parliamentary Democracy: The delay provides time for public debate, expert opinions, and stakeholder consultations, which are essential aspects of parliamentary democracy.
- Conflict Resolution: In situations where there are disputes between the state government and the center or between various state institutions, the Governor’s involvement can facilitate resolution.
Issues with the delays
- Delay in Decision-Making: The Governor’s failure to take a decision on the Bills passed by the legislature leads to a delay in decision-making, which affects the effective functioning of the state government.
- Delay in Implementation of Policies and Laws: When the Governor fails to make a decision on a Bill passed by the assembly, it delays the implementation of policies and laws.
- Undermines the Democratic Process: The Governor, who is appointed by the Centre, can use his powers to delay or reject Bills passed by state assemblies for political reasons, which undermines the democratic process.
- Public Perception: The public often views pending Bills with the Governor as a sign of inefficiency or even corruption in the state government, which can damage the government’s reputation.
- Constitutional Ambiguity: There is ambiguity in the Constitution regarding the Governor’s power to withhold assent.
- Lack of Accountability: When the Governor withholds assent, he does not provide any reason for his decision.
Recent Instances of Withholding Assent
- Chhattisgarh (2020): The Chhattisgarh Governor withheld assent to a bill amending the Chhattisgarh Lokayukta Act, 2001.
- Tamil Nadu (2021): The Tamil Nadu Governor reserved a bill exempting state students from NEET medical entrance exams for the President’s consideration after a significant delay.
- Kerala (2023): Kerala’s Governor signed five bills into law but withheld assent to six others, citing concerns about their constitutionality and legality.
Mains Marks Enhancer: Supreme Court’s Stance and Commission Recommendations
- Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix vs Dy.Speaker (2016): The SC clarified that a Governor’s discretion under Article 200 is limited to deciding whether a bill should be reserved for the President’s consideration. The Court emphasized that actions or inactions by the Governor regarding bill assent can be subject to judicial review.
- Punchhi Commission (2010): This commission recommended the establishment of a time limit within which the Governor should decide on granting assent or reserving a bill for the President’s consideration.
- National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC): NCRWC proposed a four-month time limit for the Governor to decide on a bill’s fate. It also suggested the removal of the Governor’s power to withhold assent except in cases explicitly stipulated in the Constitution.
Conclusion
- The dispute between the government and the Governor underscores the importance of timely decision-making to ensure the effective functioning of the state administration.
Governor vs. State
Does India really need State Governors?
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Office of the Governor
Mains level: Read the attached story
Central Idea
- The recent termination of a state minister’s appointment by Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi has sparked renewed debates on the role and necessity of Governors in Indian states.
- While conflicts between state governments and the Governor’s office are not new, it is important to examine the position of the Governor and its constitutional implications.
Who is a State Governor?
- In India, the position of State Governors is established by the Constitution of India.
- The constitutional provisions regarding State Governors can be found primarily in Articles 153 to 162 of the Indian Constitution.
Here are the key aspects of the constitutional position of State Governors in India:
- Appointment: The Governor of a state is appointed by the President of India. The President acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister.
- Executive Power: The Governor is the head of the state executive and exercises executive powers on behalf of the President. The Governor is the representative of the President at the state level.
- Constitutional Head: The Governor acts as the constitutional head of the state and performs ceremonial functions such as the opening and closing of the state legislature, giving assent to bills, and issuing ordinances.
- Administrative Role: The Governor plays a crucial role in the administration of the state. The Governor appoints the CM and other members of the Council of Ministers, as well as certain high-ranking state officials.
Powers and Functions
- Legislative Functions: The Governor has a role in the legislative process. The Governor summons and prorogues the state legislature, addresses the legislature at the beginning of its first session after each general election, and gives assent to bills passed by the state legislature.
- Discretionary Powers: The Governor has certain discretionary powers. For example, the Governor can reserve certain bills passed by the state legislature for the consideration of the President. The Governor can also withhold assent to bills under certain circumstances.
- Emergency Powers: In cases of breakdown of constitutional machinery in a state, the Governor can recommend the imposition of President’s Rule, where the state government is temporarily suspended, and the Governor acts as the executive head of the state.
- Link with Central Government: The Governor serves as a vital link between the state government and the central government. The Governor communicates with the President and the central government on various matters related to the state.
Arguments for the Existence of the Governor’s Post
- Preservation of Provincial Autonomy: The Constituent Assembly aimed to maintain the Governor as the constitutional representative of states in post-independence India.
- Need for Centralization and Impartiality: Supporters argue that a certain level of centralized power is essential for a developing nation like India, and the Governor ensures impartiality in governance.
- Continuity and Stability: The Governor’s presence provides stability and continuity in governance, and they play a significant role in administering oaths and delivering inaugural addresses.
Arguments against the Governor’s Post
- Interference and Politicization: Critics claim that Governors often interfere in the functioning of state governments, especially those led by opposing political parties, leading to politicization of the office.
- Lack of Impartiality: Concerns arise about the impartiality of Governors appointed from political backgrounds, potentially influencing their decisions and actions.
- Redundancy and Inefficiency: Some argue that the role of the Governor can be carried out by alternative mechanisms, and the office incurs unnecessary expenditure.
Supreme Court’s Stand and Judicial Review
- Limited Powers and Aid-Advice: The Supreme Court has established that Governors are required to exercise their powers upon the aid and advice of their ministers, except in exceptional circumstances.
- Judicial Oversight: Through landmark cases, the Supreme Court has set limits on gubernatorial powers, ensuring their actions adhere to the Constitution and the law.
Recommendations by Commissions and Committees
- Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC): The ARC, in its report in 1969, emphasized harmonious relations between Governors and state governments, suggesting enhanced cooperation and limited interference.
- Sarkaria Commission (1983): The commission proposed modifications to augment the responsibilities and influence of Governors while emphasizing impartiality and fixed tenures.
- Punchhi Commission (2010): Recommendations included consultation with the Chief Minister during the appointment of Governors and expanding their responsibilities in specific areas.
- Other Proposals: Various recommendations have been made, such as appointing Governors through a collegium, limiting their role to ceremonial duties, or abolishing the post in smaller states or union territories.
Conclusion
- The debate surrounding the role of Governors in Indian states continues to evolve.
- While arguments for the existence of the Governor’s post revolve around preserving provincial autonomy, centralization, and stability, critics highlight concerns of interference, politicization, and redundancy.
- Judicial oversight and recommendations from commissions and committees have aimed to strike a balance between the Governor’s constitutional responsibilities and the need for impartiality.
