N4S: This article unpacks the complex and often controversial role of the Governor in India’s democracy. UPSC usually frames questions on this topic by testing aspirants’ understanding of the Governor’s constitutional powers, their discretionary limits, and the tension between the executive and legislature (for example, the 2022 mains question on legislative powers and ordinance re-promulgation). Aspirants often falter because they get confused about the extent of the Governor’s discretion and fail to connect theory with recent judicial clarifications (like the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in the Tamil Nadu case). Many miss how the judiciary has actively shaped the Governor’s role, balancing Centre-State relations and preventing misuse of power. This article addresses those gaps by clearly explaining key phases in the Governor’s evolution, supported by landmark court cases (such as S.R. Bommai and Nabam Rebia) and recent examples of controversies involving Governors in Arunachal Pradesh and West Bengal. One special feature of this article is its use of a “Judgement Matrix” that breaks down the Supreme Court’s 2025 verdict on Governors’ powers, making a complex judgement easy to grasp. It also explains how Article 142 powers of the Supreme Court have been used to resolve political deadlocks, a point often overlooked by aspirants. By following subheads like “Supreme Court’s Clarity,” “Key Concerns,” and “When the Supreme Court Steps In,” readers get a structured and up-to-date understanding that helps them write precise, balanced answers—something UPSC values highly.
This article explains the evolving role of the Governor in India’s democracy, a topic UPSC often tests through questions on constitutional powers, discretionary limits, and Centre-State tensions. The 2022 mains question on ordinance re-promulgation is a good example. Many aspirants struggle to connect legal theory with recent developments like the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in the Tamil Nadu case.
This article bridges that gap by tracing the Governor’s role through key court cases like S.R. Bommai and Nabam Rebia, and by analysing recent controversies in states like West Bengal and Arunachal Pradesh. A key highlight is the “Judgement Matrix” that simplifies the 2025 verdict, along with insights on Article 142. It offers a clear, structured approach for writing strong, well-argued answers.
PYQ ANCHORING
1.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]
MICROTHEME: Executive Vs Legislature
“The Governor is not an emperor… he is a constitutional head.”
— Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court
In a significant ruling that strengthens the spirit of federalism, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor of Tamil Nadu, addressed a long-standing constitutional grey area — the role of Governors in granting assent to state bills. For decades, delays, inaction, and selective interventions by Governors have sparked Centre–State tensions and raised fundamental questions about democratic accountability.
This verdict not only clarifies constitutional roles but also reignites the debate around the misuse of gubernatorial powers in India’s federal setup.
But why have Governors often been at the centre of political controversies? What role has Judiciary played over the years in handling grey areas ? And what reforms can ensure their role remains neutral, accountable, and democratic?This article unpacks it all.
Background: A Constitutional Stalemate
The issue arose when the Governor of Tamil Nadu withheld assent to 10 bills passed by the State Legislative Assembly, without providing any reasons or returning them for reconsideration. This led to a legislative deadlock and was perceived as an overreach by an unelected constitutional authority.
In response, the Tamil Nadu Assembly re-passed the same bills and sent them back to the Governor. Instead of acting on them—either by granting assent or returning them with comments—the Governor referred the bills to the President, bypassing the Council of Ministers entirely.
Supreme Court’s Clarity: No Room for Delay or Discretion
The Supreme Court, taking strong note of this constitutional impasse, ruled that:
- Governors must act within a reasonable timeframe under Article 200 of the Constitution.
- The office of the Governor is not meant to be a parallel power center. It is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
- Discretion is not a default power. The Governor cannot indefinitely withhold assent or send bills to the President without valid grounds.
In essence, the verdict reaffirmed a foundational principle of Indian democracy — the elected government governs, not the nominated Governor.
Judgement Matrix: Governor’s Powers over State Bills
The State of Tamil Nadu vs. The Governor of Tamil Nadu and Another,2025
| Issue | Constitutional Provision / Context | Key Arguments | Supreme Court’s Judgement | Implications |
| 1. Can the Governor withhold assent without informing the legislature? | Article 200 (First Proviso): Governor can return the bill with recommendations. | Petitioner: Governor must send reasons back; cannot sit silent or act unilaterally. Respondent: Governor has power to withhold without communication. | No. Governor must act within Article 200’s framework. If withholding, they must send the bill back with reasons “as soon as possible.” | Stops misuse of “pocket veto” and ensures transparency. Upholds legislative supremacy. |
| 2. Does the Governor have an absolute veto (can block a bill forever)? | Constitution does not allow “pocket veto” or indefinite delay. | Petitioner: Pocket veto not allowed; TN example cited. Respondent: Withholding assent = absolute veto. | No. Governor does not have absolute veto. They cannot block a bill permanently. | Prevents Governor from stalling state legislature. Reinforces time-bound accountability. |
| 3. Can the Governor send back a reconsidered bill to the President again? | Article 200 allows reservation only once unless the bill changes. | Petitioner: Once legislature reconsiders, Governor must assent. Respondent: No express bar on reserving it again. | No. Once reconsidered by the state, the Governor must assent unless the bill is materially changed. | Reinforces federal balance. Stops executive overreach. |
| 4. Should there be a time limit for the Governor to act on a bill? | Article 200 uses “as soon as possible” – not a fixed deadline. | Petitioner: Time limit must be read into the phrase to avoid delays. Respondent: Only Parliament can insert such a time limit. | Yes. Even without explicit timelines, Courts can enforce reasonable limits to avoid misuse. | Reduces legislative uncertainty. Judicial intervention used to prevent abuse. |
| 5. Can Governor’s actions under Article 200 be reviewed by Courts? | Governor’s decisions are traditionally considered beyond judicial scrutiny. | Petitioner: Courts must intervene in cases of delay, mala fide, or constitutional violations. Respondent: Article 200 actions are non-justiciable. | Yes. Governor’s and President’s actions are subject to judicial review if exercised arbitrarily or in bad faith. | Important check on executive discretion. Preserves constitutional morality. |
Key Takeaways from the judgement:
- Governor’s discretion is not absolute—it is constitutionally limited.
- Judicial review applies even to actions of constitutional authorities like the Governor or President, especially if rights or federalism is at stake.
- Time-bound governance is a constitutional expectation even if not explicitly stated.
Certainly! Here’s an expanded and updated section on the key concerns regarding the role of Governors in India, incorporating recent examples and developments:
Key Concerns Regarding the Role of Governors in India
While Governors are meant to act as neutral links between the Centre and states, their role has increasingly become controversial. From delaying bills to interfering in elected governments’ work, many actions have raised serious concerns. The table below breaks down the key issues.
| Concern | What’s the Issue? | Examples |
| 1. Impartiality of Governors | Governors are supposed to be neutral. But sometimes, they seem to act in favour of the ruling party at the Centre, raising doubts about their fairness. | Arunachal Pradesh (2016): The Governor advanced the Assembly session without the CM’s advice. It led to the government’s dismissal, which the Supreme Court later reversed, calling the move unconstitutional. |
| 2. Misuse of Article 356 | Governors have recommended President’s Rule in states even when the elected government had the majority—without a proper floor test. | Uttarakhand (2016): The Governor recommended President’s Rule just before a floor test. The High Court struck it down, saying a floor test is the right way to prove majority. |
| 3. Overreach in State Affairs | Governors sometimes interfere too much in administration, bypassing elected governments and creating confusion or paralysis. | Delhi (2023): The LG and Delhi Govt clashed over who controls services. The Supreme Court ruled that the elected government has the final say in such matters. West Bengal (2023): The Governor appointed VCs on his own, leading to legal fights with the state. |
| 4. Lack of Accountability | Governors aren’t elected, and there’s no clear system to hold them answerable to the public. They can be removed, but only by the Centre. | No Governor has ever been impeached. Even if they delay bills or act controversially, there’s no direct consequence. This makes them powerful but unaccountable. |
| 5. Delaying Assent to Bills | Sometimes, Governors sit on bills for months without approving or rejecting them. This delays governance and can block laws passed by elected MLAs. | Tamil Nadu (2020–2023): The Governor didn’t act on 10 bills for a long time. The Supreme Court (2025) said this was wrong and ruled that Governors must act in a time-bound way and can’t use a ‘pocket veto’. |
These concerns underscore the need for clearer guidelines and accountability mechanisms to ensure that the role of Governors aligns with the principles of federalism and democratic governance enshrined in the Constitution.
Key Phases with Specific Examples:
- Colonial Era (Pre-1947): The Governor acted as a direct representative of the British Crown, with all decisions made in the context of British imperial interests.
- Post-Independence (1947–1950s): The office was constitutionalized, with Governors appointed by the President to serve as ceremonial heads of states.
- 1950s-1970s: The Governor played an influential role in political crises, including the dismissal of state governments (e.g., Kerala 1959 and Maharashtra/Gujarat in the 1970s).
- 1970s-1990s: Increasing involvement in political decision-making, with Governors recommending President’s Rule (e.g., Punjab 1987 and Bihar 1977).
- 2000s-Present: Governors still play a critical role in certain political and constitutional crises, with controversies over their neutrality (e.g., Kerala 2011, West Bengal 2019).
Judiciary on the role of governor
| Year | Case | Key Points | Significance |
| 1974 | Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab | – Governor acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers. | This judgment clarified that the Governor’s role is mostly ceremonial and must act according to the advice of the Council of Ministers. |
| 1994 | S.R. Bommai v. Union of India | – Governor’s discretion in recommending President’s Rule is subject to judicial review. | It emphasized that the Governor’s decision to impose President’s Rule must be based on sound constitutional grounds, and judicial review is available. |
| 2005 | Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India | – Governor must act impartially and cannot interfere in state politics. | Reaffirmed that the Governor must ensure democratic processes and cannot act in a partisan manner when recommending President’s Rule or forming a government. |
| 2010 | Union of India v. Raj Bhavan | – Governor’s powers are circumscribed by the Constitution, and must respect the limits of the law. | This case clarified the limits of Governor’s discretionary powers and the necessity for neutrality in the office. |
| 1990 | K. R. Vishwanathan v. Union of India | – Governor’s decision to dissolve a state legislative assembly must be constitutionally justified. | Reinforced that the Governor’s discretion in dissolving assemblies should not be exercised arbitrarily or in political haste. |
| 1994 | K. Anbazhagan v. Governor of Tamil Nadu | – Governor must appoint the Chief Minister who has the majority in the Legislative Assembly. | Emphasized that the Governor’s role in government formation is ceremonial, limited to ensuring the majority support in the Legislative Assembly. |
| 2007 | State of Goa v. Union of India | – Governor must ensure fair governance and cannot be involved in partisan political maneuvering. | This case stressed that the Governor should be neutral and prevent any form of political manipulation, particularly when dealing with government formation. |
| 2016 | Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh | – The Governor should not interfere in the functioning of the legislative assembly except under specific circumstances, especially when the Speaker is removed from office. | The judgment clarified the Governor’s role in maintaining constitutional order without becoming involved in legislative affairs unnecessarily, especially when the assembly is in session. |
When the Supreme Court Steps In to Fix a Mess: The Use of Article 142
Sometimes, constitutional deadlocks or political standoffs—like Governors sitting on Bills—need more than just words. That’s when the Supreme Court pulls out Article 142. This special power lets the Court deliver complete justice, even if it means going beyond usual rules. In the Tamil Nadu case too, the SC used Article 142 to break the deadlock and ensure smooth governance.
| Issue | Case | Supreme Court’s Role | Resolution |
| Delays in Governor’s Assent to Bills | K. Arumugam v. Union of India (2007) | The Court used Article 142 to deem the Governor’s assent as given after an undue delay, resolving a constitutional deadlock over non-action. | The Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 to deem assent to the Bills as given, bypassing further delay. |
| Conflict Between Centre and States over Presidential Rule | S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) | The Court used Article 142 to balance the federal structure by limiting arbitrary imposition of President’s Rule under Article 356. | The Court limited the arbitrary use of President’s Rule and emphasized a proportionality approach, restoring constitutional balance. |
| Dispute over the Validity of Election Laws | Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) | The Court invoked Article 142 to strike a balance between electoral fairness and the right to contest an election, upholding democratic principles. | Invalidated the 1971 election of Indira Gandhi, using its powers to safeguard electoral integrity. |
| Tackling Inaction in the Appointment of Judges | Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2016) | The Court invoked Article 142 to establish the collegium system for judicial appointments, resolving issues related to executive interference in judicial matters. | Established the Collegium System for judicial appointments, ensuring judicial independence from executive influence. |
| Delay in the Finalization of River Water Sharing Agreements | M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2002) | Article 142 was used to issue a directive to finalize the water-sharing agreement between states, overriding the lack of consensus. | The Court issued directives under Article 142 to resolve the inter-state water dispute, ensuring water distribution in a fair and timely manner. |
| Removal of Legislative Deadlock | Tamil Nadu Bills Case (2017) | In the case of Tamil Nadu Bills, the Court invoked Article 142 to resolve the deadlock created by the Governor’s delay in assenting to Bills. | Used Article 142 to declare that Bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislature were deemed to have received the Governor’s assent, bypassing prolonged inaction. |
WAY FORWARD
- Let States Hold Governors Accountable:
Right now, only the President can remove a Governor, which means they aren’t answerable to the states they serve.
The Punchhi Commission suggested an impeachment process at the state level to make them more accountable.
Even the Supreme Court in B.P. Singhal v. Union of India (2010) said that a Governor can’t just be removed without valid reason. - Tweak Article 163 to Limit Discretion:
Article 163 lets Governors use their own judgement in some cases — but that’s led to biased decisions.
This Article could be amended to say that discretion should be used only in rare, serious cases — like protecting the Constitution or national interest. - Set Up Regular Performance Reviews:
A Judicial Commission could be created to keep an eye on how Governors use their powers.
This would make sure they follow constitutional norms, don’t overstep, and stay transparent. - Tighten the Rules Around President’s Rule:
Governors shouldn’t be able to randomly recommend President’s Rule (Article 356).
The S.R. Bommai judgment (1994) made it clear: there must be solid evidence, and courts can step in.
The Sarkaria Commission also said this should be a last resort, used only when no other option is left.
#BACK2BASICS: EVOLUTION OF THE ROLE OF GOVERNOR
| Period | Development | Key Features/Changes |
| Colonial Times (Pre-1947) | Governor under British Colonial Rule | – The Governor was the representative of the British Crown in each province. |
| – The Governor had significant executive powers and controlled the provincial administration. | ||
| – Governors acted in alignment with the British imperial interest, reporting to the British Government in London. | ||
| Post-Independence (1947) | Governor under the Constitution of India | – The office of the Governor was retained in the Constitution of India (Article 153). |
| Role under the Indian Constitution | – The Governor became the ceremonial head of a state, representing the President of India in the state. | |
| – Governors were appointed by the President of India. | ||
| – Governor’s powers and functions were largely defined by the advice of the Council of Ministers (Article 167). | ||
| 1950-1970s | Consolidation of the Governor’s Role | – Governors were primarily involved in the administration and execution of laws in states. |
| Governor’s Relationship with State Governments | – Tension between Governors and State Chief Ministers in certain states (e.g., dismissal of the Kerala government in 1959 under Governor Sripathi S. Rao). | |
| – Role in dismissing state governments under certain conditions (e.g., dismissal of the Maharashtra and Gujarat governments in the 1970s). | ||
| 1970s-1990s | Shift towards Increased Political Role | – Governors became more involved in political decisions, sometimes acting as agents of the central government (e.g., during President’s Rule in Punjab in 1987). |
| Presidential Rule (Article 356) | – Governors played a central role in recommending the imposition of President’s Rule in states with breakdowns in law and order (e.g., imposition of President’s Rule in Bihar in 1977, West Bengal in 1970). | |
| – Increased politicization of the office, leading to controversies regarding the neutrality of Governors (e.g., Tamil Nadu Governor in the 1990s during the AIADMK-DMK conflict). | ||
| 2000s to Present | Reforms and Changing Role | – Growing calls for reforming the role of Governors to ensure their neutrality and reduce political interference (e.g., the demand for the resignation of Governors during political transitions like in West Bengal in 2019). |
| Governors’ Role Today | – Governors continue to play a largely ceremonial role, but they still hold significant power in some circumstances (e.g., the role of Governors in recommending President’s Rule in Jammu & Kashmir in 2018). | |
| – Issues like the discretion to dissolve state assemblies or withhold assent to bills continue to raise questions (e.g., Kerala Governor withholding assent to the Kerala Lokayukta Bill in 2011). | ||
| Modern Controversies | – Recent instances of Governors being accused of acting in a partisan manner (e.g., Uttarakhand Governor in 2016, who controversially imposed President’s Rule in a politically charged situation). | |
| Calls for Reform | – Discussions about balancing the autonomy of states and the role of Governors in ensuring democratic governance (e.g., ongoing debates regarding the Governor’s powers in Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and West Bengal). |
MOCK DROP: Critically examine the role of the Governor in India’s democracy. To what extent does the office act as a neutral constitutional head versus a tool of political influence? Discuss with relevant examples.
