Politician holding a high administrative position in a state government.
In the complex web of Indian politics, the role of Governors has been a subject of constant debate and scrutiny. Several commissions and court rulings have offered recommendations and guidelines to ensure that the Governors act as constitutional functionaries rather than political agents.
The Punchhi Commission, for instance, suggests a fixed five-year tenure for Governors, with removal not at the discretion of the Central Government. It also recommends a procedure similar to the impeachment of the President for removing Governors, and Governors should decide within six months whether to grant assent to a bill or reserve it for the President's consideration.
The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC) echoes these sentiments, recommending amending Article 155 to have a committee comprising the Prime Minister, Home Minister, Speaker of the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Minister of the concerned state select the Governor.
The Sarkaria Commission advises that Article 356 should be used only as a last resort when all alternatives fail, and the Governor should consult the Chief Minister before sending reports to the President. It also recommends that Governors should be eminent in some field, from outside the state, and uninvolved in local politics. Retired Governors should not accept any office of profit, and the five-year term should not be disturbed except for extremely compelling reasons.
The 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission adds to these recommendations, suggesting that a Governor should have long experience in public life and administration and be capable of rising above party biases. It also recommends that the convention of consulting the Chief Minister before appointing a Governor should continue, and guidelines for the Governor's discretionary powers should be formulated by the Inter-State Council.
The role of the judiciary in shaping the Governor's role has been significant. The BP Singhal Case (2010) states that the President's power to remove a Governor should not be exercised arbitrarily and removal should occur only in rare and exceptional circumstances for valid and compelling reasons. The Nabam Rebia Judgment (2016) rules that the Governor's discretion under Article 163 is limited, and decisions should not be arbitrary and must be based on reason, good faith, and caution.
The courts have addressed instances of misuse of discretionary powers by Governors. For example, in 2005, the Governor of Bihar recommended President’s Rule and the dissolution of the State Assembly based on his subjective assessments. The Supreme Court in the Rameshwar Prasad case (2006) ruled that the Governor’s motivated and whimsical conduct was subject to judicial review. More recently, in 2023–2025, Supreme Court bench rulings have grappled with the Governor’s powers concerning assent to state legislature bills, restricting the discretionary powers of Governors to prevent indefinite withholding of assent and misuse of power.
In summary, instances of misuse include subjective dissolution of assemblies and arbitrary calls for assembly sessions, and delays in bill assent. The Supreme Court has addressed these by limiting Governors’ discretionary powers, mandating judicial review, and enforcing procedural timelines to uphold constitutional norms and federalism. The recommendations of various commissions aim to further streamline the role of Governors, ensuring their role is strictly confined to constitutional provisions.
Policy-and-legislation surrounding the role of Governors in Indian politics has seen numerous recommendations and guidelines to limit their political influence and ensure adherence to constitutional functions. For instance, the Sarkaria Commission suggests that retired Governors should not accept any office of profit, and the 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission recommends limiting the discretionary powers of Governors, with guidelines for such powers being formulated by the Inter-State Council.
General-news reports have highlighted instances of misuse of discretionary powers by Governors, such as subjective dissolution of assemblies and arbitrary calls for assembly sessions, and delays in bill assent. Politics in this context has prompted the Supreme Court to address these issues by limiting Governors’ discretionary powers, mandating judicial review, and enforcing procedural timelines to uphold constitutional norms and federalism.
