Governor vs. State: Supreme Court draws the line
(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.)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
42 minutes ago
- The Print
Gurjar Mahapanchayat ends after state govt's assurance on meeting their demands
Gurjar leader Vijay Bainsla read out the state government's response before the gathering, which included the cabinet's decision to recommend the inclusion of five per cent reservation for Most Backward Classes (MBCs) in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution. The Mahapanchayat was convened by the Gurjar Aarakshan Sangharsh Samiti in the Pilupura area of Bayana. Jaipur, Jun 8 (PTI) The Gurjar community's Mahapanchayat concluded on Sunday at Karwari Shaheed Memorial in Rajasthan's Bharatpur following a consensus over the state government's response to their demands, though a section of the community briefly disrupted train services in protest. The state also agreed to appoint a nodal officer in every district to address cases registered during previous Gurjar agitations, he said. Bainsla added that the government had also agreed to hold monthly review meetings on Devnarayan Board schemes, expedite pending recruitments, and other issues raised by the community. However, after the Mahapanchayat ended, a group of people gathered at the railway tracks near Fatehsinghpura and halted the 54794 Mathura-Sawai Madhopur passenger train for more than 90 minutes. They also removed clips from the railway track, affecting traffic on the Delhi-Mumbai route. Railway Protection Force (RPF), local police and administrative officials held talks with the protesters, following which operations resumed, officials said. 'The train movement remained disrupted for more than one and a half hours,' Chief Public Relations Officer (CPRO) of North Western Railway said. Bharatpur Collector Amit Yadav said the area was vacated after talks. Inspector General of Police Rahul Prakash said the protesters were assured that their concerns would be addressed. Reacting to the incident, Bainsla said that majority from the community was satisfied with the government's response and chose not to focus on isolated acts. 'To get the 5 per cent MBC reservation included in the Ninth Schedule, the state cabinet will recommend the move and urge the Centre to act. This was our key demand and we are happy,' he told PTI. The Ninth Schedule contains a list of laws that are shielded from judicial review. Bainsla also confirmed the government's agreement on appointing nodal officers to dispose of cases from past agitations. Earlier in the day, the Samiti had issued an ultimatum to the BJP government to respond to its demands by Sunday afternoon. Minister of State for Home Jawahar Singh Bedham urged the Gurjar leadership to avoid agitation, saying the government was open to dialogue. 'Everyone has the right to express themselves in a democracy. But when the government is willing to talk, what is the need for a Mahapanchayat or protest?' he said, while also personally appealing to Bainsla. 'He contested the Deoli-Uniyara seat and attends party meetings. I urge him to resolve the issues through dialogue,' the minister said. Due to the Mahapanchayat, traffic between Bayana and Hindaun City was diverted via alternate routes, and additional police force was deployed to maintain law and order. Kirori Singh Bainsla, Vijay Bainsla's late father, had led several Gurjar agitations since 2006, including rail blockades on key routes. PTI AG OZ OZ This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Democracy without dissent a contradiction: Justice Surya Kant
Democracy without dissent is a contradiction and that silence in the face of injustice is not neutrality, but complicity, Supreme Court judge justice Surya Kant has asserted as he invoked India's constitutional ethos and the top court's role in defending civil liberties. Justice Kant, who is in line to take over as the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in November this year, was speaking at the Washington Supreme Court as part of an international judicial exchange. In his address earlier this week that underscored the shared constitutional commitments of India and the United States, the judge said: 'Democracy without dissent is a contradiction, and that silence in the face of injustice is not neutrality, but complicity…These are not merely legal precedents; they are constitutional declarations.' Justice Kant highlighted that the right to free speech, protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution and the First Amendment in the US, has been 'zealously defended' by courts on both sides of the Atlantic. Drawing parallels with the US Supreme Court's protection of student protest in Tinker Vs Des Moines (1969), he recalled how India's top court, much earlier, had established the primacy of expression in Romesh Thappar and Brij Bhushan cases in 1950, ruling against pre-censorship and vague notions of public order. 'In both countries, the judiciary has consistently pushed back against the temptation to suppress dissent under misguided and deceptive notions that the executive may hold,' he noted. Reaffirming the foundational nature of constitutional supremacy in both democracies, Justice Kant highlighted that the basic structure doctrine in India that asserts Parliament cannot amend away core constitutional values mirrors the American principle that 'even the majoritarian will must bow' before foundational ideals like liberty, federalism, and equality. 'These doctrines reflect a shared understanding that tampering with these principles would cause a rift so immense that it would threaten the very heart of our existence,' he warned. ALSO READ | Free speech, democracy, and the epidemic of hurt feelings Justice Kant also spotlighted India's global leadership in using public interest litigation (PIL) as a judicial tool to redress collective harm. Citing the Vishaka judgment (1997) where the Indian Supreme Court laid down workplace sexual harassment guidelines in the absence of legislation, he said: 'Though structurally distinct, both approaches reflect a shared judicial philosophy: that justice must not be confined to individual litigants but must be responsive to collective harm and systemic failure.' In contrast, he acknowledged the role of class action lawsuits in the US, such as Lois Jenson Vs Eveleth Taconite Co (1993), where female workers collectively challenged workplace abuse. Addressing the evolution of due process jurisprudence, Justice Kant recalled how the Indian Constitution initially adopted 'procedure established by law' over the American-style 'due process,' but eventually evolved the latter through judicial interpretation. 'In the seminal Maneka Gandhi case (1978), the Indian Supreme Court read into the phrase the requirements of justice, fairness, and reasonableness -- effectively harmonizing our doctrine with the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,' he added. Justice Kant concluded his address on a note of judicial kinship, stating: 'It is my firm belief that our countries, and our legal systems, share a kindred spirit rooted in the pursuit of justice, liberty, and the rule of law… The law must be a shield for the weak, not a sword for the powerful.'
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Train halted in Rajasthan over Gurjar quota demands, track cleared after assurances
Rail traffic on the Kota division of the West Central Railway resumed on Sunday evening after Gurjar protesters vacated the railway tracks near Bayana town in Rajasthan's Bharatpur, following a brief disruption during which a passenger train was stalled for over three agitation happened after a Mahapanchayat was held earlier in the day at the Karwari Shaheed Memorial in the Pilupura area. Convened by the Gurjar Aarakshan Sangharsh Samiti, the meeting was aimed at pressing the community's long-standing demands related to reservation and other welfare issues. The state government's draft response to these demands was read out by Samiti president Vijay Bainsla during the the Mahapanchayat concluded without incident, discontent brewed amongst a section of attendees dissatisfied with the government's reply. Soon after, some community members gathered on the tracks and stopped the 54794 Mathura–Sawai Madhopur passenger train at Fateh Singhpura station, disrupting rail operations between Fateh Singhpura and Dungeria stations in the Kota division. According to the West Central Railway's Chief Public Relations Officer, the train was held up for over three hours. Approximately 10 to 12 trains were affected due to the blockade. Authorities, including Railway Protection Force (RPF), local police, and senior railway officials, engaged in negotiations with the Jain, Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Kota (WCR), confirmed that the track was cleared by around 7 pm following successful discussions. "There has been no report of injury or loss of life, and the railway is fully committed to ensuring passenger safety," he to the protest, Vijay Bainsla - son of the late Kirori Singh Bainsla, who had spearheaded several Gurjar reservation movements since 2006 - downplayed the disruption. "Some people might have come on the tracks. I don't want to comment much on it," he told Bainsla expressed satisfaction with the government's handling of the core issues raised by the community. "To get the 5 per cent reservation for Most Backward Classes (MBC) included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, a proposal will be recommended by the state cabinet to the Centre. The entire community wanted this. It is a legislative issue, and we are all happy," he Ninth Schedule of the Constitution includes laws that are protected from judicial review, shielding them from legal also noted that another key demand - appointing a nodal officer in each district to review and resolve police cases filed against community members during past Gurjar agitations - had received a positive response from the state. "The government has agreed to it," he in the day, the Samiti had issued an ultimatum to the BJP-led Rajasthan government to respond to their demands by Sunday afternoon. In anticipation of unrest, Minister of State for Home Jawahar Singh Bedham had urged Gurjar leaders to avoid a democracy, everyone has the right to express their views. But when the government is open to dialogue, what is the need for a Mahapanchayat or protest?" Bedham asked. He also made a personal appeal to Vijay Bainsla, highlighting his longstanding association with the BJP and participation in party Mahapanchayat led to heavy traffic diversions in the region. Movement between Bayana (Bharatpur) and Hindaun City (Karauli) was rerouted via Karauli and Mahwa through Kalsada, bypassing the Pilupura area. Vehicles from Karauli to Bharatpur were diverted via Hindaun–Kalsada–Bhusawar instead of the Bayana–Hindaun state highway. Additional police forces were deployed in the area to maintain law and day's events were reminiscent of earlier Gurjar agitations, particularly those led by Kirori Singh Bainsla, which had in the past brought major railway routes to a standstill. While Sunday's protest was smaller in scale, it underscored the community's continued demand for affirmative action and legislative the tracks now cleared and talks seemingly moving forward, the state government is expected to formally process its commitments, including sending the reservation proposal to the Centre and addressing pending legal cases tied to earlier protests. advertisement
