Author: Mansi R. Jadhav, Shahaji Law College, Kolhapur
To the Point
The Governor, according to the Constitution, is expected to act as the neutral head of a state, someone who protects the rule of law and ensures that the state functions within constitutional limits. But in today’s political atmosphere, this role has often turned controversial. Several Governors have been seen taking sides, delaying decisions, and interfering in day-to-day governance. This has raised a serious question: Is the Governor truly a guardian of the Constitution or acting as a political agent of the party ruling at the Centre?
Use of Legal Jargon
Discretionary Powers: Powers that the Governor can use based on personal judgment in certain situations, like inviting a party to form the government when no party has clear majority.
Constitutional Morality: The idea that actions must not only follow the written Constitution but also its true values like fairness and democracy.
Judicial Review: The power of courts to check whether the actions of officials, including Governors, are legal or not.
Colourable Exercise of Power: When someone misuses power while pretending to act legally.
Ultra Vires: Doing something beyond one’s legal authority.
Abstract
The Governor holds a crucial constitutional position as the head of a state in India. The role was originally meant to be neutral and largely ceremonial, ensuring that the state’s democratic and constitutional machinery functions smoothly. However, in recent years, the office of the Governor has been at the centre of political controversies. From questionable government formation in hung assemblies, to delay in giving assent to state legislation, Governors have increasingly been viewed as political agents of the Central government. This article examines the constitutional provisions, legal interpretations, landmark judgments, commission recommendations, and examples to evaluate whether Governors today act as impartial guardians of the Constitution or as political representatives of the ruling party at the Centre.
The Proof
The Governor is appointed by the President under Article 155 and holds office during the “pleasure of the President” (Article 156). He or she is supposed to act as a link between the Centre and the State and follow the advice of the Council of Ministers, except in limited situations like in case of no majority or when recommending President’s Rule.
But in real practice, many Governors have acted more like political figures than neutral heads. Political parties in power at the Centre often appoint individuals with close political ties as Governors, who later interfere in state matters especially in states ruled by opposition parties. This creates serious issues in India’s federal structure.
The Sarkaria Commission (1988) had clearly recommended that a Governor should not be from the ruling party or politically active, and there must be consultation with the Chief Minister before appointing Governor. Similarly, the Punchhi Commission (2010) stressed that the Governor must stay away from active politics and follow a Code of Conduct. But these recommendations have not been made mandatory.
The Governor’s powers look limited in the Constitution. But in some crucial moments, like when no party has a majority, the Governor has the final say in inviting a party to form the government. This power has often been used in biased ways. In 2018, Karnataka elections, no party secured a clear majority, but the Governor chose to invite the BJP despite it having fewer seats than the post- election alliance to form the government. This decision was questioned by the public and media. The Supreme Court stepped in and instructed that a floor test be held within a day to prove who had the majority support in the Assembly. In Goa (2017) and Manipur (2017), even though the Congress was the single largest party, Governors invited the BJP to form the government by considering post-poll alliances. Such decisions make people doubt whether the Governor is acting fairly or just helping the Central ruling party.
Another big issue is when Governors hold back bills passed by elected Assemblies. The Governor has the authority to assent to a bill, delay it, or refer it to the President for further consideration. But recently, this power has been misused. In Tamil Nadu (2023–24), Governor R.N. Ravi withheld several bills passed by the Assembly without any clear reason. These delayed schemes related to education and social welfare. The situation forced the state government to take legal action in the Supreme Court.
The Governor can recommend President’s Rule under Article 356 if there is a breakdown of constitutional machinery in a state. But history shows that this power has often been used to remove opposition governments.
In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), several state governments were dismissed by the Centre using Article 356. The Supreme Court ruled that this power must be used only when there is real proof of failure, not political dislike. The Governor’s report must be honest, fair, and open to judicial review. This case was a turning point. The Court said that the majority of a government must be tested on the floor of the Assembly, not decided by the Governor or President based on reports alone.
There have also been cases where Governors made political or controversial comments. In Maharashtra, former Governor, Mr. Bhagat Singh Koshyari made a comment- Mumbai’s financial growth was mainly due to the contributions of Gujaratis and Rajasthanis. This was seen as an insult to Marathi people and sparked outrage. In Kerala, Governor Arif Mohammad Khan clashed with ministers and made press statements accusing the state government.
Such behaviour lowers the dignity of the Governor’s office and shows clear political leaning. Governors are expected to stay silent in public and express their views through proper channels not through media interviews or social media posts.
Case Laws
1. S. R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994)
In this landmark case, the Supreme Court dealt with the misuse of Article 356, where several state governments were dismissed by the Centre. The Court held that the power to impose President’s Rule must only be exercised when there is an actual breakdown of constitutional machinery, and not for political reasons. The Governor’s report recommending such action must be based on objective and verifiable facts. Importantly, the Court affirmed that such reports are subject to judicial review. It also laid down that majority in the House must be tested on the floor of the Assembly and not decided in the Raj Bhavan. This judgment became a strong safeguard against the arbitrary dismissal of elected state governments.
2. Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, (1974)
This case helped in interpreting the Governors powers in accordance with constitutional principles. The Supreme Court held that the Governor is bound to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in all matters, except in a few well-defined discretionary situations. The Court emphasized that India follows a parliamentary form of government, where real executive power lies with the elected government, not with the Governor. It restricted the Governors use of personal discretion and highlighted the importance of the Cabinet in decision making.
3. State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, (2025)
In this recent case, the Tamil Nadu government approached the Supreme Court after the Governor delayed assent to several bills passed by the state legislature without providing any reasons. The Supreme Court ruled that such indefinite delay amounts to a “pocket veto” and goes against the principles of responsible and time-bound governance. The Court emphasized that the Governor must act within a reasonable timeframe and that unjustified delays violate constitutional propriety. This case reaffirmed the importance of maintaining harmony between the legislature and the Governor’s office.
4. Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker, (2016)
In this case the Supreme Court ruled that the Governor does not have the power to summon, prorogue, or dissolve the Assembly on his own discretion under Article 174. These powers must be exercised strictly on the advice of the elected Cabinet. The judgment reaffirmed that the Governor is not above the Constitution and that his actions are subject to judicial scrutiny, especially when they disrupt the democratic functioning of state legislatures.
Conclusion
The Governor is supposed to be an unbiased guardian of the Constitution. But today, his actions often look like those of a political representative of the Centre. Whether it is forming governments, delaying bills, dismissing elected governments, or making public comments, the Governor’s office is under serious scrutiny.
The judiciary has played a strong role in limiting this misuse. But the real solution lies in adopting the recommendations of the Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions. We need clear rules about how Governors are appointed, how long they serve, what powers they can use, and how they are held accountable. Only then can we make sure that the Governor works for the Constitution not for politics.
FAQS
Q1. Can the Governor dent assent to a bill passed by the state Assembly?
Yes, but only under special conditions. The Governor can either grant approval, delay the decision, or refer the bill to the president.
Q2. Can courts check the Governor’s actions?
Yes. Though Governors have personal immunity under Article 361, their official actions like recommending President’s Rule can be reviewed by the courts.
Q3. Can a Governor be removed before five years?
Yes. The Governor holds office “during the pleasure of the President,” so he can be removed anytime without reason.
Q4. Why is the Governor’s role controversial today?
Because in many states, Governors are accused of favouring the ruling party at the Centre, interfering in state governance, and delaying important decisions.
