Why in News: The Supreme Court will hear a Presidential reference on July 22 to decide if courts can impose timelines and procedures on the President and Governors under Articles 200 and 201. The move follows a Supreme Court ruling that deemed assent to State Bills due to the Tamil Nadu Governor’s inaction.
Date of hearing: July 22, 2025
Bench: Constitution Bench of 5 judges
Legal trigger: Presidential reference under Article 143 (advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court)
Context: Follows an April 8, 2024, ruling by a two-judge SC Bench in a case filed by the Tamil Nadu government regarding delay and inaction by the State Governor in assenting to 10 re-passed State Bills.
Core Constitutional Issues Raised
1. Judicial Oversight over President and Governors
Can the judiciary impose timelines and prescribe procedures for the President and Governors under:
- Article 200 – Assent, withholding of assent, or reservation of Bills by Governor.
- Article 201 – President’s decision on reserved Bills.
2. Scope of Article 142
Can Article 142 (court’s power to do complete justice) be used to:
- Override or substitute constitutional functions of the President or Governors?
- Declare “deemed assent” where assent was not explicitly granted?
Points of Contention from April 8 Judgment
- The governor’s inaction was termed unconstitutional.
- The Supreme Court deemed assent to all 10 Bills using Article 142.
This led to questions like:
- Is “deemed assent” valid without explicit consent?
- Can courts step in before a Bill becomes law?
- Are Governor’s or President’s decisions subject to judicial review under Articles 200/201?
Key Concerns Related to Governors in India
1. Affiliation-Based Appointments
- Governors are often appointed from among politicians or bureaucrats aligned with the ruling party at the Centre.
- This raises concerns about the Governor’s impartiality and undermines the expectation of a non-partisan role.
2. Arbitrary Removal
- There is no formal procedure or clear grounds for removing Governors.
- This results in arbitrary removals, often coinciding with changes in the Union government, affecting stability and independence.
3. From Constitutional Head to Centre’s Agent
- Governors are appointed and removed by the Central government, making them perceived as agents of the Centre rather than neutral constitutional heads.
4. Misuse of Discretionary Powers — Recommending President’s Rule
- Governors sometimes recommend President’s Rule based on subjective or politically motivated grounds rather than objective evidence.
- This discretionary power has been misused to destabilize elected state governments.
5. Blurring of Constitutional and Statutory Roles
- The Governor’s constitutional duty to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers conflicts with their statutory role as Chancellor of state universities.
- Example: Conflict arose when the Kerala Governor appointed a university Vice-Chancellor bypassing the state government’s recommendations.
6. Misuse of Discretion in Appointment of Chief Minister
- In hung assemblies or coalition scenarios, Governors have been accused of partisan conduct in choosing the Chief Minister, often favoring the ruling party at the Centre.
7. Delay in Convening or Dissolution of Legislative Assemblies
- Governors have been criticized for delaying the summoning or dissolution of state legislative assemblies, which can affect the democratic process.
8. Delay in Assent to Bills
- There is no fixed time limit for Governors to grant or withhold assent to Bills passed by state legislatures.
- This power has been exploited to stall or veto legislation passed by elected governments.
9. Perceived Political Bias
- Governors are often viewed as extensions of the ruling party at the Centre, raising doubts about their neutrality.
- Example: In 2016, the Arunachal Pradesh Governor’s actions led to the dismissal of the elected government, later overturned by the Supreme Court.
10. Misuse of Article 356 (President’s Rule)
- Governors have recommended President’s Rule without allowing elected governments to prove majority on the floor, often perceived as politically motivated.
- Example: Uttarakhand (2016) saw President’s Rule imposed just before a floor test.
Key Reforms suggested by various committees and Supreme Court
Key Supreme Court Rulings
1. Shamsher Singh vs. State of Punjab (1974)
- The governor must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers (Article 154(1)).
2. S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994)
- Governor’s decision to recommend President’s Rule must be based on floor test, not subjective judgment.
3. Rameshwar Prasad vs. Union of India (2006)
- Dissolution of State Assembly by Governor was held unconstitutional and mala fide. Subject to judicial review.
4. B.P. Singhal vs. Union of India (2010)
- Arbitrary removal of Governors is unconstitutional; removal must be for valid reasons.
5. Nabam Rebia vs. Deputy Speaker (2016)
- Governor cannot summon or advance Assembly sessions without Cabinet’s advice; no independent discretion under Article 174.
1. Sarkaria Commission (1988)
- Governor should be apolitical and appointed after consulting the Chief Minister.
- Avoid giving Governors statutory roles beyond their constitutional mandate.
- Limit role in universities, give states greater say.
2. Venkatachaliah Commission (2002)
- Appointment should be made by a broad-based committee: PM, Home Minister, Lok Sabha Speaker, and State CM.
- Ensure political neutrality and security of tenure.
3. Punchhi Commission (2010)
- Set a time limit (6 months) for Governor’s decision on Bills.
- Curb misuse of Article 356 with stricter safeguards.
- Recommended removal only in rare cases, not at Centre’s pleasure.
Measures to Address Governor–State Disputes
1. Introduce an Impeachment Mechanism for Governors
- The Punchhi Commission recommended a state-level impeachment mechanism to ensure accountability.
- In BP Singhal v. Union of India (2010), the Supreme Court held that removal must be based on valid and compelling reasons, not political whims.
2. Amend Article 163 to Limit Discretionary Powers
- Amend Article 163 to clearly define that discretionary powers should be used only in rare and exceptional cases, particularly involving constitutional breakdown or national interest.
- This will help prevent politically motivated interventions.
3. Set Up a Mechanism for Reviewing Gubernatorial Conduct
- Establish Judicial or Constitutional Commissions to conduct periodic performance reviews of Governors.
- Such reviews would promote transparency, adherence to constitutional norms, and deter overreach.
4. Frame Clear Guidelines for Imposition of President’s Rule
- Following the S.R. Bommai case (1994), such recommendations must be based on objective material and are subject to judicial review.
- The Sarkaria Commission also stressed that Article 356 should be a last resort, to be invoked only after exhausting all other constitutional avenues.
Conclusion: The Governor’s discretion should be governed by clear norms and principles outlined in a formal Code of Conduct. Decisions must be reasonable, made in good faith, and exercised with caution.
UPSC Relevance
GS Paper 2 – Governance, Constitution, Polity
Key Themes:
- Role of Governor in Indian federal structure
- Centre-State relations and cooperative federalism
- Judicial review of constitutional functionaries
- Separation of powers and checks & balances
Mains Practice Questions
Q Recent judicial scrutiny of gubernatorial conduct has revived the debate over the discretionary powers of Governors in India.Examine the constitutional framework governing the office of the Governor. Suggest reforms to ensure neutrality and accountability.
