Governor vs. State: Supreme Court draws the line

Indian Express

05-05-2025

(The Indian Express has launched a new series of articles for UPSC aspirants written by seasoned writers and scholars on issues and concepts spanning History, Polity, International Relations, Art, Culture and Heritage, Environment, Geography, Science and Technology, and so on. Read and reflect with subject experts and boost your chance of cracking the much-coveted UPSC CSE. In the following article, Dr. Akhil Kumar delves into the role and power of the Governor in light of the recent ruling by the Supreme Court.)
Recently, the Supreme Court, for the first time, ruled that the President should take a decision on the Bills reserved for consideration by the Governor within three months from the date on which such reference is received.
Under Article 201 of the Constitution, the Governor has the power to reserve a Bill – passed by both Houses of the State Legislature – for the consideration of the President.
The apex court invoked its special power under Article 142 and called for a decision within three months and added, 'in case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed' to the state concerned.
The April 8 ruling came in response to Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi's prolonged inaction over 10 crucial State Bills, withholding of consent on them and the subsequent reservation of the re-passed Bills to President Droupadi Murmu for her consideration in November 2023.
Tension between the States and Governors often emerges due to the proviso to Article 200, which states that the Governor 'may, as soon as possible' grant assent to the Bills without specifying any definitive timeline.
Therefore, the apex court's ruling calls for a closer examination of the Constitutional provisions dealing with the role of Governors and their relations with the state, specifically in view of the fact that the Constitution has set no timeframe for a Presidential decision on a Bill reserved for consideration by the Governor.
First, let's look into the appointment and role of a Governor.
Appointment and qualifications of Governor
The Constitution has laid provisions for the appointment of a Governor. Article 153 states, 'There shall be a Governor for each State.' Article 155 says that the 'Governor of a State shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal'. Under Article 156, 'the Governor shall hold office during the pleasure of the President', but his normal term of office will be five years.
If the President withdraws her pleasure before the completion of five years, the Governor has to step down. Since the President acts on the aid and advice of the Prime Minister and the Union Council of Ministers, in effect, the Governor is appointed and removed by the central government.
Articles 157 and 158 enunciate the qualifications of the Governor and the conditions of his office: (i) the Governor must be a citizen of India and has attained the age of 35 years; (ii) the Governor should not be a member of Parliament or a state legislature, and must not hold any other office of profit.
Roles of the Governor
The Constitution also specifies that the Governor must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers of the state. Article 163 states: 'There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions, except in so far as he is by or under this Constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion.'
The Constitution also empowers the Governor to summon, prorogue, or dissolve the State Assembly. However, the Governor can exercise this power only after due consultation with the Council of Ministers.
As the executive head of the state, the Governor is entrusted with powers such as the appointment of the Chief Minister, Council of Ministers, Advocate General, State Election Commissioner, State Universities officials, Chairman and members of the State Public Service Commission and others.
What recent judgement by the top court says
The Governor enjoys certain powers under the Constitution such as giving or withholding assent to a Bill passed by both Houses of the State Legislature. Under Article 200 of the Constitution, the Governor has several options:
— To grant assent to the bill,
— To withhold assent,
— To return the bill (if it is not a money bill) for consideration by the State Legislature, and
— To reserve the bill for the President's consideration.
However, proviso to Article 200 also states that the executive head of the State must return the bill 'as soon as possible' but it does not mention any stipulated time, which has sometimes resulted in long delays in gubernatorial action.
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court addressed this issue and laid down time-bound guidelines for the Governors to act upon a Bill:
— Granting assent within one month,
— Not withholding assent contrary to the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers,
— Return a Bill within three months,
— Expressing reservations on the bill within three months, and
— If the Bill is reconsidered and passed again by the Legislature, the Governor must grant assent within one month.
Don't Miss | The world this week | India, Pak ties hit another low after Pahalgam terror attack, New Delhi, Ottawa to reset strained ties, US threatens sanctions against Iranian oil buyers
Committees and judgements on the Governor's role
In various instances, the role of the Governor, along with the scope of their powers and functions, has been a recurring subject, which was scrutinized by various committees appointed by the Centre and the Supreme Court of India.
From the Administrative Reforms Commission in 1969 to the Punchhi Commission in 2007, several panels constituted by various governments recommended wide-ranging reforms regarding the Governor's selection process, powers, functions, tenure, impeachment and other matters.
The Sarkaria Commission (1988) examined the centre-state relations and suggested reforms regarding the Governor's power under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.
The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2001), chaired by M.N. Venkatachaliah and initiated by the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government, observed that Governors, as representatives of the Centre, often act as its agents, and decisions taken by them often evoke controversy.
The Punchhi Commission (2007) reviewed the existing arrangements between the centre and the States and recommended that the Governor must be appointed with the consultation of the Chief Minister of the concerned state and there must be a timely decision by the Governor on the bills passed by the Legislature.
To ensure impartial functioning, the office of the Governor did come under judicial scrutiny on several occasions, with the Supreme Court of India delivering key observations to rein in the Governor's power in several landmark judgments. These rulings served as points of reference in subsequent cases and shaped the functioning of this constitutional office. Some of them are:
In Shamsher Singh vs State of Punjab (1974), the court declared that the Governor must act only on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. In 1979, in Raghukul Tilak's case, the court held that Governors are not mere employees of the Centre but hold a high constitutional office in their respective states they are appointed.
The S R Bommai vs Union of India (1994) can be considered a landmark judgement over the Governor's decision on the President's rule (Article 356) as it laid down clear guidelines that the floor test is final to prove the majority and the Governor's actions are subject to judicial scrutiny.
In 2006, in Rameshwar Prasad vs Union of India with reference to the dissolution of Bihar state legislative assembly, the court firmly made it clear that the Governor's individual opinion cannot be a valid reason for the imposition of President's rule in any State.
Post Read Questions
What are the broader constitutional implications of the Supreme Court's ruling in Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi's prolonged inaction over 10 crucial State Bills on Governor-State relations?
What does the ruling imply about the evolving role of the judiciary in interpreting executive powers at the state level?
Why is the absence of a definitive timeline in Article 200 seen as problematic in Centre-State relations?
How do constitutional provisions aim to balance the Governor's formal authority with the democratic functioning of the elected state government?
(Dr. Akhil Kumar is a PhD in Political Science from University of Hyderabad.)