Governor
Governor of a State
The Governor is the constitutional head of a state, appointed by the President under Article 155. Part VI, Chapter II (Articles 153-167) deals with the state executive. Unlike the President, the Governor is not elected but nominated, and serves "during the pleasure of the President." The Governor acts as the vital link between the Centre and the State, and exercises both constitutional and discretionary powers.
Key Dates
Constitutional provisions for state executive came into force; Governors appointed for all Part A and Part B states
States Reorganisation Act — 7th Amendment allowed one Governor for two or more states (Art 153); states reorganized on linguistic basis
Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab — SC held Governor, like President, is a constitutional head and must normally act on ministerial advice
Sarkaria Commission appointed to review Centre-State relations including the role of the Governor
Sarkaria Commission submitted report: Governor should be non-partisan, from outside the state, appointed after consulting CM, with a fixed tenure
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India — SC laid down strict guidelines for Art 356; Governor's report made subject to judicial review; floor test established as the only legitimate test of majority
Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India — SC held Governor's exercise of discretion is subject to judicial review; dissolution of Bihar Assembly was unconstitutional
B.P. Singhal v. Union of India — SC held President can remove Governor at any time without giving reasons but removal cannot be arbitrary, mala fide, or capricious
Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker — SC clarified limits of Governor's discretionary powers in Arunachal Pradesh crisis; Governor cannot summon Assembly at his discretion to defeat govt
Multiple states (Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Punjab) in conflict with Governors over bill assent, university appointments, and prorogation of sessions
Maru Ram v. Union of India — SC held pardoning power under Art 161 is exercised on state Council of Ministers' advice, not Governor's personal discretion
D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar — SC condemned Bihar's practice of repeatedly re-promulgating ordinances for over a decade; applied to Governor's ordinance power under Art 213
Krishna Kumar Singh v. Bihar — 7-judge SC bench held Governor's satisfaction for issuing ordinances subject to judicial review; re-promulgation is fraud on Constitution
Constitutional Framework — Articles 153-167
Article 153 provides that there shall be a Governor for each state, but one person can be appointed as Governor for two or more states (7th Amendment, 1956). Article 154 vests the executive power of the state in the Governor, exercised directly or through officers subordinate to him. Article 155: the Governor is appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal — this makes the appointment effectively an act of the Central Government. Article 156: the Governor holds office during the pleasure of the President (no fixed tenure guarantee) and normally serves for a term of five years. Article 157: qualifications — citizen of India, completed 35 years of age. Article 158: conditions of office — shall not be a member of either House of Parliament or state legislature; shall not hold any other office of profit; entitled to official residence (Raj Bhavan), emoluments, allowances, and privileges. Article 159: oath of office — to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and the law; administered by the Chief Justice (or senior-most judge) of the concerned High Court. Article 160: discharge of Governor's functions in certain contingencies (by a person designated by the President). Article 161: pardoning power. Articles 163-164: Council of Ministers and CM. Article 165: Advocate General. Article 166: conduct of business. Article 167: CM's duties vis-a-vis the Governor.
Appointment, Tenure, and Removal
The Governor is appointed by the President (Art 155) — in practice, this means the Governor is chosen by the Central Government (PM and Council of Ministers). The Constitution does not prescribe any procedure for selection. By convention (recommended by Sarkaria Commission): the Governor should be selected from outside the state; should be a distinguished person; should not be active in politics (especially of the state); the state CM should be consulted before appointment (though this is rarely followed in practice). Term: 5 years, but the Governor holds office "during the pleasure of the President" (Art 156(1)). This "pleasure doctrine" means the Governor can be removed at any time. In B.P. Singhal v. Union of India (2010), the SC held: (1) the President can remove a Governor at any time, even before the 5-year term expires; (2) removal need not be for any stated reason — the President is not required to give reasons; (3) however, removal cannot be arbitrary, unreasonable, mala fide, or based on political considerations alone; (4) the decision is subject to limited judicial review. The Governor's emoluments are charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State (not voted on by the state legislature). The Governor takes oath before the Chief Justice of the concerned HC. A Governor who is appointed for two states takes oath separately before the CJ of each state.
Executive Powers of the Governor
Article 154: the executive power of the state is vested in the Governor. All executive actions of the state are taken in his name (Art 166). The Governor makes key appointments: Chief Minister and other ministers (Art 164), Advocate General (Art 165), Chairman and members of State Public Service Commission (Art 316), State Election Commissioner (Art 243K), Chairpersons of local bodies (in certain states). The Governor appoints judges of district courts in consultation with the HC Chief Justice (Art 233). The Governor is consulted by the President in the appointment of HC judges (Art 217). The Governor appoints the Vice-Chancellors of state universities (this role has been controversial — the Punchhi Commission recommended removing this power). The Governor administers the oath of office to the CM, ministers, and AG. Under Article 239(1), the Governor of a state can be appointed as the administrator of an adjoining UT. The Governor makes rules for the convenient transaction of business (Art 166(3)). All executive actions are authenticated as prescribed by the Governor's rules. The Governor can call for information from the CM regarding administrative and legislative matters (Art 167). The Governor is responsible for law and order under certain special provisions (e.g., Nagaland under Art 371A, Manipur and Mizoram under Art 371C).
Legislative Powers of the Governor
The Governor summons, prorogues the state legislature and can dissolve the Vidhan Sabha (Art 174). He addresses the state legislature at the commencement of the first session each year (Art 176). He nominates 1/6 of members of the Vidhan Parishad (Legislative Council) from persons having special knowledge in literature, science, art, cooperative movement, and social service (Art 171(5)). The provision for nominating one Anglo-Indian to Vidhan Sabha was deleted by the 104th Amendment (2020). The Governor lays the state budget before the legislature (Art 202). No Money Bill can be introduced without the Governor's prior recommendation. The Governor's assent to bills (Art 200): he can (a) give assent, (b) withhold assent, (c) return the bill for reconsideration (not Money Bills), or (d) reserve the bill for the President's consideration. When a bill is reserved, the President can (a) give assent, (b) withhold assent, or (c) direct the Governor to return it to the state legislature. There is no time limit for the President to act on reserved bills — this has been a source of friction (e.g., Tamil Nadu and Kerala). The Governor issues ordinances under Article 213 when the state legislature is not in session — ordinances have the same force as state Acts but must be laid before the legislature within 6 weeks. Certain ordinances require prior instructions from the President: those related to matters where the Governor would reserve a bill for the President (Art 213(1) proviso).
Pardoning Power (Article 161)
Article 161 grants the Governor the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, and remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit, or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the state extends. Key limitations distinguishing the Governor's power from the President's (Art 72): (1) the Governor CANNOT pardon a death sentence — only the President can; (2) the Governor CANNOT pardon court martial sentences — military courts are under Union jurisdiction; (3) the Governor's power is limited to offences under state laws only. The pardoning power is exercised on the advice of the State Council of Ministers (not at the Governor's personal discretion) — this was confirmed in Maru Ram v. Union of India (1980) and applies equally to the Governor's pardoning power. The five types of clemency are the same as the President's: pardon (complete absolution), commutation (lighter punishment), remission (shorter sentence), respite (lesser sentence for special reason), and reprieve (temporary stay of execution). In Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of AP (2006), the SC held that the Governor's pardoning power is subject to judicial review for arbitrariness, mala fide exercise, or non-application of mind. The Governor's pardoning power has been significant in cases where state-level prisoners seek mercy.
Discretionary Powers — Constitutional and Situational
Unlike the President, the Governor has broader discretionary powers — some constitutional and some situational. Constitutional discretion: (1) Reservation of a bill for the President's consideration (Art 200) — this is the Governor's absolute discretion; the Council of Ministers cannot advise against reservation; (2) Recommending President's Rule in the state (Art 356 report) — the Governor may, on his own assessment, send a report to the President; (3) Exercising functions as administrator of an adjoining UT (Art 239(1)); (4) Determining the amount payable by the Government of Assam to autonomous tribal district councils as royalty from mineral revenues (Sixth Schedule, Para 9); (5) Special responsibilities under various Articles: Art 371(2) — Maharashtra (Vidarbha/Marathwada development boards); Art 371A(1)(b) — Nagaland (law and order until insurgency ceases); Art 371C — Manipur (hill areas committee); Art 371F(g) — Sikkim; Art 371H — Arunachal Pradesh. Situational discretion: appointing the CM when no party has a clear majority (hung assembly); deciding whether the CM has lost confidence; dissolving the assembly when the CM advises dissolution after losing majority but before facing a floor test; dismissing the CM who refuses to resign despite losing majority. Article 163(1) provides that the Governor shall act on the advice of the Council of Ministers except when he is required to exercise his functions "in his discretion." Article 163(2): the Governor's decision on whether a matter falls within his discretion is final and shall not be questioned.
Governor's Role in President's Rule (Article 356)
Article 356 empowers the President to impose President's Rule in a state if satisfied (on the Governor's report or otherwise) that the state government cannot be carried on in accordance with the Constitution. The Governor's report is the primary trigger — though the President can also act independently. The Governor's report has been misused historically: between 1950 and 1994, President's Rule was imposed over 100 times, often for partisan political reasons. The landmark S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) laid down strict guidelines: (1) President's Rule is a last resort — the state assembly should not be dissolved before both Houses of Parliament approve the proclamation; (2) the floor test is the only constitutional way to determine whether a government has lost majority — the Governor cannot make subjective assessments; (3) the Governor's report and the President's proclamation are subject to judicial review — the SC can examine whether the report was based on relevant material or was mala fide; (4) secularism is part of the basic structure — a state government acting against secular principles can be a valid ground; (5) the majority must be tested on the floor of the House, not in Raj Bhavan (Governor's mansion). Post-Bommai, instances of President's Rule have reduced significantly but controversies persist. In Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006), the SC held the dissolution of the Bihar Assembly by the Governor was unconstitutional and the Governor's recommendation was based on extraneous considerations.
Sarkaria Commission Recommendations on the Governor
The Sarkaria Commission (1983-1988), chaired by Justice R.S. Sarkaria, was appointed to examine Centre-State relations, including the Governor's role. Key recommendations: (1) The Governor should be an eminent person from outside the state who is not too intimately connected with the local politics of the state. (2) The Governor should be a detached figure without any intense political links or recent political involvement. (3) The person to be appointed should be consulted with the Chief Minister of the state — though his views need not be binding. (4) The Governor should not be removed before the completion of the 5-year term except in rare and compelling circumstances. (5) The Governor should not be eligible for a second term. (6) If the Governor has to be removed before the term, the procedure should be essentially similar to impeachment (the commission did not recommend a formal impeachment process but suggested safeguards). (7) In a hung assembly, the Governor should explore all possibilities before recommending President's Rule — first invite the pre-poll alliance leader, then the single largest party, then a coalition. (8) Art 356 should be used sparingly, as a measure of last resort. Most of these recommendations have been accepted in principle but are not consistently followed in practice — Governors are still often perceived as agents of the Central Government.
Punchhi Commission Recommendations on the Governor
The Punchhi Commission (2007-2010), chaired by Justice M.M. Punchhi, was the second major commission to examine Centre-State relations and the Governor's role. Key recommendations: (1) The phrase "during the pleasure of the President" in Art 156 should be deleted and the Governor should be removable only through a process similar to impeachment by the state legislature — this was the most radical recommendation. (2) The Governor should have a fixed tenure of 5 years with removal only for proven misconduct or incapacity. (3) The Governor should be appointed by a committee comprising the PM, Home Minister, Speaker of Lok Sabha, and the CM of the concerned state. (4) The Governor should not be eligible for any other government position (including second term as Governor) after demitting office. (5) The Lokpal should have jurisdiction over the Governor. (6) The Governor should have no role in university appointments (Vice-Chancellors) — this role should be delegated to the state government or an independent committee. (7) The Governor's discretionary powers should be strictly limited and defined. The Punchhi Commission's recommendations are more progressive than the Sarkaria Commission's, but very few have been implemented. The recommendation to remove the "pleasure doctrine" has been particularly contentious, as it would fundamentally alter the Centre-Governor relationship.
Controversies and Recent Conflicts
The Governor's office has been the subject of persistent controversy regarding partisan behavior. Key instances: (1) The dismissal of the E.M.S. Namboodiripad government in Kerala (1959) — one of the earliest uses of Art 356 against a democratically elected state government. (2) The Goa crisis (1990s) — Governor's discretion in appointing the CM was challenged. (3) The Bihar Assembly dissolution (2005) — Governor Buta Singh dissolved the Assembly before government formation was attempted; SC struck down the dissolution in Rameshwar Prasad case. (4) The Arunachal Pradesh crisis (2016) — Governor's actions in summoning the Assembly and changing the session date were struck down in Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker. (5) The Maharashtra crisis (2019) — Governor's midnight swearing-in of Devendra Fadnavis and Ajit Pawar was controversial; the SC ordered an immediate floor test. (6) The Karnataka crisis (2018) — Governor invited Yeddyurappa to form government despite lacking majority; CM resigned before floor test. (7) Recent conflicts (2022-2024): Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Punjab Governors accused of sitting on bills indefinitely, refusing to summon sessions, and interfering in university appointments. The SC in multiple observations has called for legislation to define the Governor's powers regarding bill assent and session summoning, including imposing time limits.
Governor as Chancellor of Universities
By convention and state university Acts, the Governor serves as the Chancellor of state universities. As Chancellor, the Governor typically has powers to: appoint Vice-Chancellors, preside over Convocations, and oversee university governance. This role has become increasingly controversial: Governors have been accused of using the Chancellor position for political purposes — appointing politically affiliated Vice-Chancellors, delaying appointments to pressure state governments, and interfering in academic autonomy. Several states (Kerala, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal) have attempted to legislate away the Governor's Chancellor role, transferring it to the CM or an independent body. These attempts have led to legal battles, with Governors refusing assent to such bills. The Punchhi Commission recommended that the Governor should not serve as Chancellor — the role should go to eminent academicians or the state government. The SC has not definitively ruled on this issue but has observed that the Governor's Chancellor role is a creation of state legislation, not the Constitution, and can therefore be modified by state law. This remains one of the most active areas of Centre-State conflict in contemporary India.
Governor's Power to Withhold Assent to Bills and Time Limits
Article 200 gives the Governor four options on a bill: assent, withhold assent, return for reconsideration (not Money Bills), or reserve for the President. The Constitution prescribes no time limit for the Governor to act on a bill — unlike the President (who also has no time limit but conventions exist). This has led to the phenomenon of "pocket veto" by Governors — indefinitely sitting on bills without giving or withholding assent. The SC in Purushothaman Nambudiri v. State of Kerala (1962) held that once a bill is reserved for the President, it ceases to be before the state legislature. When a bill is returned and re-passed by the state legislature (with or without amendments), the Governor must give assent — he cannot withhold assent or reserve it again. For reserved bills, Article 201 gives the President three options: assent, withhold assent, or direct the Governor to return the bill. There is no time limit for the President on reserved bills either — this has been a source of federal friction. States have argued that the indefinite withholding of assent amounts to a "legislative pocket veto" that undermines state legislative sovereignty. The NCRWC recommended imposing a time limit (such as three months) for gubernatorial action on bills. In 2023-2024, the SC took cognizance of this issue in the context of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, with several justices suggesting that a reasonable time limit should be read into Art 200.
Governor's Ordinance-Making Power (Article 213)
Article 213 empowers the Governor to promulgate ordinances when the state legislature is not in session, if satisfied that circumstances require immediate action. Conditions: (1) At least one House must not be in session. (2) Subject matter must be within the state legislative competence. (3) Every ordinance must be laid before the state legislature on reassembly and ceases to operate 6 weeks after reassembly (or on disapproval, whichever is earlier). (4) The Governor cannot promulgate an ordinance without instructions from the President on matters requiring the President's prior sanction under the Constitution (e.g., if the law would be invalid without Presidential assent). The Governor's ordinance power parallels the President's under Art 123 but has an additional constraint — certain ordinances require the President's prior instructions. In D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1987), the SC condemned Bihar's practice of repeatedly re-promulgating ordinances without placing them before the legislature — some ordinances had been re-promulgated for over a decade. In Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2017), a 7-judge SC bench held that the satisfaction of the Governor for issuing ordinances is subject to judicial review, that re-promulgation is a fraud on the Constitution, and that an ordinance that lapses or is not laid before the legislature is an abuse of power. The Governor's ordinance power is exercised on the advice of the state Council of Ministers (not independently), except in discretionary situations.
Special Responsibilities and Provisions for Certain States
Several Articles give the Governor special responsibilities for certain states: Art 371 (Maharashtra and Gujarat) — the Governor has a special responsibility to establish separate development boards for Vidarbha, Marathwada, and the rest of Maharashtra; for Saurashtra and Kutch in Gujarat. Art 371A (Nagaland) — the Governor has special responsibility regarding law and order in Nagaland; no Act of Parliament on Naga customary law/religious practice/ownership of land/administration of civil and criminal justice applies unless the state assembly so resolves. Art 371B (Assam) — Governor may constitute a committee of Tribal members of the assembly. Art 371C (Manipur) — Governor has special responsibility regarding the hill areas. Art 371D-E (Andhra Pradesh, now also Telangana) — President may establish an Administrative Tribunal for service disputes. Art 371F (Sikkim) — special provisions for legislative assembly. Art 371G (Mizoram) — Mizo customary law protected. Art 371H (Arunachal Pradesh) — Governor has special responsibility regarding law and order; acts in discretion after consulting CM. Art 371J (Karnataka) — special provisions for Hyderabad-Karnataka region. These special provisions give Governors of certain states constitutional authority that other Governors do not have, making their discretionary realm wider.
Governor vs President — A Comparative Analysis
The Governor and President occupy structurally similar positions at the state and Union levels respectively, but with critical differences. Election vs Appointment: the President is elected by an electoral college (indirect election), while the Governor is directly appointed by the President (effectively the Central government). This fundamental difference affects the Governor's independence. Removal: the President can only be removed through impeachment for "violation of the Constitution" (Art 61) — a quasi-judicial process. The Governor serves at the "pleasure of the President" (Art 156) with no specified grounds or procedure for removal — a purely executive decision (B.P. Singhal case, 2010). Pardoning power: the President can pardon death sentences and court martial sentences (Art 72); the Governor CANNOT pardon either (Art 161). Veto: both have absolute, suspensive, and pocket veto powers over bills; the Governor has the additional power to reserve bills for the President. Emergency: the President proclaims emergencies under Art 352/356/360; the Governor's role in emergencies is to report constitutional failure to the President under Art 356. Qualifications: both require 35 years and citizenship; the President must be qualified for LS membership; the Governor has no such parallel requirement. The Governor's dependence on the Centre (through the pleasure doctrine) has been the most criticized aspect of the office — the Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions both recommended reforms to enhance gubernatorial independence.
Relevant Exams
Very important for UPSC and State PSCs. Key areas: appointment and removal (Art 155-156, B.P. Singhal case), discretionary vs constitutional powers, comparison with President's powers (especially pardoning — Art 72 vs Art 161), Art 356 and S.R. Bommai guidelines, Sarkaria/Punchhi Commission recommendations, Governor-CM conflicts, reservation of bills (Art 200), ordinance power (Art 213), and the Chancellor controversy. The Governor's controversial role is a perennial UPSC Mains topic. Recent SC observations on bill assent time limits are current affairs-relevant.