State Executive | Indian Polity for UPSC CSE PDF Download

Appointed rather than elected

Governors of Indian states are appointed by the President of India and are not directly elected by the people of the State. The Constituent Assembly debated the alternative of having elected governors but decided on appointment for several reasons:

• To avoid another election: Appointment would save the country from the consequences of an additional popular election, which could be run on personal issues rather than on public policy.
• To preserve constitutional balance: An elected Governor might consider himself superior to the Chief Minister and cause frequent friction between the head of state and the head of the elected government.
• To avoid disproportionate expense: The expense and machinery of a direct election would be out of proportion to the limited constitutional powers of the Governor, who is intended to be a constitutional head.
• To preserve Union-State cohesion: Appointment by the President would allow the Union Government to maintain a degree of control over States and reduce the encouragement of regional tendencies that might follow from a locally elected Governor.

Drawback

The method of appointment has an important drawback: it tends to make the Governor function more as an effective agent of the Union Government than as an impartial constitutional head of the State. Although the President appoints the Governor, the appointment is made on the advice of the Union Council of Ministers. In practice, thismeans that the ruling party at the Centre has a decisive influence over the choice.

When the political party in power at the Centre differs from that in the State, tensions often arise. The Governor's actions-especially where he uses any discretionary power to appoint or dismiss a ministry or to dissolve a State Assembly-can produce controversy and allegations of partisan behaviour. Because the constitutional description of the Governor's discretionary powers is not exhaustive, actions taken in apparent defiance of the elected State Government may be challenged as biased.

Areas of controversy

• Mode of appointment: The method of appointment is said to make the Governor an 'agent' of the Centre.
• State Government's wishes ignored: Appointments or removals of Governors have sometimes ignored the preferences of State Governments, particularly when different parties rule at Centre and State.
• Ill-defined discretionary powers: The vague scope of discretionary powers has led to controversial actions taken against the State Executive.
• Partisan actions: There have been instances of allegedly partisan use of powers-appointing Council of Ministers, dissolving Assemblies, or recommending President's Rule.
• Pageantry and prestige: Some object to the pomp and ceremonial trappings of the office when the Governor's constitutional role is limited.

Measures to improve the situation

Several practical measures and conventions could reduce conflict and restore the Governor's impartiality:

• Responsible appointments: The Union executive must exercise greater care and responsibility in selecting Governors; the post must not be treated as a sinecure or a reward for political loyalty.
• Selection criteria: Governors should be persons of proven administrative capacity, moral standing and the ability to balance national and regional interests-preferably distinguished non-controversial figures from political, social or educational life.
• Enhanced conventions: Create and respect conventions that require the Governor to act with restraint and impartiality, especially in politically sensitive situations.
• Constructive role: Where appropriate, the Governor's role may be enlarged to include specific watchdog or advisory functions agreed with State Governments, so long as these functions are exercised with the concurrence of the Chief Minister and do not undermine democratic government.
• Political will: Ultimately, reduction of conflict depends on political will to follow constitutional principles and put national interests ahead of short-term partisan gains.

Constitutional position regarding dismissal of a ministry by the Governor

Ministers in a State hold office during the "pleasure of the Governor" (see Article 164(1) of the Constitution). However, this constitutional phrase should not be read as permitting arbitrary dismissal. It must be read together with the principle of collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers to the State Legislative Assembly. The combined import is:

• The Governor cannot impose on the Assembly a Council of Ministers that clearly does not enjoy the confidence of the House.
• The Governor cannot arbitrarily dismiss a ministry that enjoys the confidence of the Assembly.

When no party has a clear majority after an election, the Governor has a limited but important role in assessing which party or coalition is likely to command the confidence of the Assembly. The Sarkaria Commission examined this issue and set out recommended procedures for how the Governor should select the Chief Minister. These recommendations have been accepted as authoritative by the judiciary and political practice.

The Supreme Court's decisions in the important cases on dismissal and President's Rule (notably S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, 1994) have established that the Governor cannot dismiss a ministry on the ground of loss of majority unless the lack of support is proved on the floor of the Assembly. If a Chief Minister refuses to resign despite losing a floor test, the Governor may then act in accordance with constitutional procedure.

Where there is a grave breakdown of law and order amounting to the breakdown of constitutional machinery in the State, the Governor's constitutional duty is to report the situation to the President; it is for the President (in practice, the Union Cabinet) to decide whether and how to respond, including possible invocation of Article 356.

Special responsibilities of the Governor

The President may assign certain special responsibilities to the Governor of a State. When so assigned, the Governor exercises these functions independently and on his discretion. Examples include:

• Administrator of a Union Territory: Where the Governor is appointed as administrator of an adjoining Union Territory, he may exercise powers without consulting the State Ministers.
• Nagaland: The Governor has special responsibility in connection with law and order, reflecting the tribal and security context of the State.
• Manipur: The Governor supervises the proper functioning of the Hill Areas Committee of the State Legislature.
• Sikkim: The Governor has special responsibilities connected with the peace and welfare of the people of Sikkim.

Legislative powers of the Governor

The Governor is an integral part of the State Legislature and performs several legislative functions, although he is not a member of either House. Key legislative powers and functions include:

• Nomination to Legislature: Where a State has a Legislative Council, the Governor nominates members to it as constitutionally permissible. The Governor may also nominate members of the Anglo-Indian community to the Legislative Assembly if, in his opinion, that community is not adequately represented (Article 333).
• Summon, prorogue and dissolve: The Governor has the power to summon or prorogue the Houses of the State Legislature and to dissolve the Legislative Assembly.
• Address and messages: The Governor addresses the Legislature at the commencement of each session and may send messages to either House.
• Assent to Bills: No bill passed by the State Legislature can become law without the Governor's assent. The Governor may:
• give assent;
• withhold assent;
• return the bill (other than a Money Bill) for reconsideration; or
• reserve the bill for the consideration of the President.

Ordinance-making power: During the recess of the Legislature, the Governor may promulgate ordinances under Article 213; such ordinances have the force of law but must be approved by the Legislature within prescribed time limits after reassembly.

Discretionary powers of the Governor

The Constitution envisaged mainly ministerial responsibility in States. Dr B.R. Ambedkar and other framers expected the Governor to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Nevertheless, the Constitution does recognise certain instances where the Governor may act in his discretion. These include:

• Selection of Chief Minister: In a hung Assembly or where no party has an absolute majority, the Governor must select a leader who is most likely to command the confidence of the House.
• Dismissal of a ministry: In exceptional circumstances, subject to constitutional and judicial limits.
• Dissolution of Assembly: Where the Governor believes that the Assembly cannot function in accordance with constitutional norms.
• Advising the President: Recommending imposition of President's Rule when constitutional machinery breaks down.

These discretionary powers are not absolute. The President and the Union Government provide checks; the Governor can be removed. Judicial review has limited and clarified the scope of these powers-courts require objective proof (for example, a floor test) before endorsing drastic steps such as dismissal of an elected ministry.

As an oft-quoted practical observation puts it, a Governor can do much good if impartial and much mischief if partisan-despite the relatively limited formal powers conferred by the Constitution.

Privileges and immunities

The Governor enjoys certain constitutional privileges and immunities while exercising official functions. These include:

• Immunity from legal proceedings: In the exercise of his official duties, the Governor is immune from civil or criminal proceedings in respect of acts done in the discharge of official functions while in office. Article 361 of the Constitution provides protection to Governors from certain legal processes.
• No arrest or imprisonment: No summons for arrest or imprisonment shall be issued against a Governor in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by him in his personal capacity while in office.

Thus, while the Governor enjoys important protections, these do not confer license for arbitrary action; constitutional checks and judicial scrutiny remain available in appropriate cases.

Status and functions of the Advocate-General

Each State has an Advocate-General, an officer corresponding to the Attorney-General for India at the Union level. Relevant constitutional points are:

• Appointment: The Advocate-General is appointed by the Governor of the State and holds office during the pleasure of the Governor.
• Qualification: Only a person qualified to be appointed as a judge of a High Court may be appointed Advocate-General.
• Duties: The Advocate-General's duties include giving advice to the State Government on legal matters referred to him by the Governor, performing other legal functions referred by the Governor, and discharging functions conferred by the Constitution or any law in force.

Summary

The State Executive comprises constitutional offices headed by the Governor, who is appointed by the President on the advice of the Union Council of Ministers. The Governor's role combines formal ceremonial functions, legislative powers (assent, summon, prorogue, ordinance power), special responsibilities (where assigned by the President), and limited discretionary powers in exceptional circumstances. The constitutional design emphasises ministerial responsibility to the State Legislature, but the practice of appointment and occasional use of discretion by Governors has been a source of controversy. Judicial decisions (for example, S.R. Bommai) and commissions (such as the Sarkaria Commission) have sought to clarify procedures and limit arbitrary use of gubernatorial powers. The Advocate-General is the State's principal legal officer appointed by the Governor and performs legal advisory and representative functions for the State Government.