Revisiting the role of Governors

The Tamil Nadu Assembly has once again passed the bill seeking state exception from NEET and has submitted it for Governor R.N. Ravi’s assent. The encore was forced upon the Assembly after Mr Ravi sent the first bill back to the government for reconsideration last September. The Governor could have avoided the act as the final assent lies with the Presidential office.

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has been having a ding-dong battle with State Governor Jagdeep Dhankar ever since the latter was ushered into the post. The latest bout was over the former blocking the Governor’s Twitter handle. It was just over two years ago that Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshiyari swore in BJP leader Fadnavis as CM for a second tenure in a hushhush ceremony at 8-15 am in Raj Bhavan. The state had been placed under President’s rule following Shiv Sena’s refusal to support a coalition government led by Fadnavis for a second term. On a night in 2017, then Puducherry Governor Kiran Bedi was found moving incognito on the streets of the small town. the explanation offered by her office was that she wanted to find how safe the city was for women!

These may serve as a few vignettes of the contentious nature of Governor’s roles in states. The Governor is the Constitutional head of state and is considered the key link between the state and the Union government in a federal structure. He is mandated to carry out his duties in consultation with the state government. But in practice, the role of the Governor has come under controversy, especially with the advent of diverse governments in states. They have come to be dubbed as ‘puppets of the Centre’, ‘agents of the Union government’ and even destabilisers of elected governments.

The criticism has mainly centred around their tenure, appointments and discretionary powers. Misuse of their powers has often led to the office earning disrepute. The Supreme Court judgment in S. R. Bommai vs. Union of India case (1994), curtailed the misuse of Governor’s power under Article 356 of the Constitution, and put an end to the arbitrary dismissal of state governments by a hostile Central Government and fixed the floor of the Assembly as the final arbiter for a test of majority support. Yet the scope and prospects of abuse of office have not altogether been eliminated. Governors continue to overstep their domain and state governments keep complaining about the misuse of office. While on one extreme, questions have been raised about the necessity of the office, on the other extreme there have been calls for recall of the Governor.

Governors striving to promote the ideology of the party in power at the Centre have mainly been a source of friction. Appointment of hardcore party activists as governors has widened the scope for such abuse. It has often been suggested that Governors be appointed from a panel of names recommended by the state legislature and the ultimate decision be vested in a Council of States. Fissures are expected to remain in Centre-States relations in such a hugely diverse nation and the need to constantly revisit the powers of the Governor remains a necessity.