Syllabus: Issues and challenges pertaining to the federal structure
Background
- Recent Supreme Court judgments on Governors and the 16th Presidential Reference have revived debates on the constitutional role of Governors.
- Constituent Assembly debates show that the framers deliberated deeply on Governor impartiality, discretionary powers, and federal balance.
- Concerns today mirror fears raised in 1947–49 about whether a nominated Governor could act without political bias.
Constituent Assembly Concerns
- Members feared a nominated Governor would be “remote-controlled” by the Centre and resemble the colonial provincial Governors under the 1935 Act.
- They insisted that a Governor must remain above suspicion and avoid becoming a replica of the Viceroy’s appointees.
Ambedkar’s Clarifications
- On Impartiality
-
-
- Ambedkar stressed that a Governor must act solely on ministerial advice and cannot be an agent of the Centre.
- He described the Governor as a “purely constitutional Governor” meant to facilitate parliamentary government, not rival the elected Cabinet.
-
- On Discretionary Powers
-
-
- Discretion is “very limited,” restricted to explicit provisions such as selecting a Chief Minister after elections.
- Ambedkar rejected claims that discretionary clauses revived the 1935 Act’s override powers.
-
- On Bill Assent and Reservation
-
- Members criticised the power to reserve Bills as a disguised discretionary authority.
- Ambedkar clarified that reservation applies only to a narrow class of Bills that threaten the Centre’s constitutional position.
- He insisted Governors must not sit in judgment over State legislation and must act on advice unless discretion is expressly mentioned.
- Ambedkar’s Vision of a Non-Interfering Governor
-
-
- He emphasised that Governors have no special emergency powers and remain bound by the Council of Ministers even during crises.
- He believed the office was so limited and ceremonial that few would want the position.
-
- Contemporary Relevance
-
- Present controversies show Governors acting contrary to Ambedkar’s expectations, especially in Opposition-ruled States.
- Court interpretations of “as soon as possible” have allowed delays in assenting to Bills, contradicting constitutional spirit.
- As former President K.R. Narayanan asked: Has the Constitution failed us, or have we failed it?
Conclusion
- Misuse of gubernatorial power reflects failures of individuals, not the Constitution.
- Courts must uphold constitutional morality and prevent actions that distort Ambedkar’s vision of a non-partisan, limited Governor.