Introduction

Under the federal system in India, the position of the Governor is a peculiar one. Although the Governor is formally the nominal head of the State, being appointed by the President under Article 155 of the Constitution, the office has been a major source of contention when it comes to Centre-State relations. Being a constitutional power, the Governor is supposed to be the mediator between the Union and the States, so that constitutional principles are followed. In reality, however, the discretionary powers of the Governor, the nature of political appointments and the controversial interventions have frequently cast doubts on the health of Indian federalism.

Governor in the Constitution

Articles 153 to 162 of the Constitution talks about the position of the Governor. The major responsibilities are:

1. As the head of the executive of the State (Article 154).

2. Meeting, adjourning and dissolving the State Legislature (Article 174).

3. Consent to Bills (Article 200).

4. Suggesting the President Rule in case constitutional machinery in the State collapses.

In spite of the fact that the Governor is obliged to be guided by the advice of the Council of Ministers (Article 163), there are some discretionary powers, which permit to make independent judgments, which led to an appearance of many political disputes.

Supreme court on the role of the Governor

The constitutional boundaries of the powers of the Governor have been explained by the Supreme Court on several occasions:

1. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)- The Court ruled that the report issued by the Governor suggesting the President to extend his rule to the state is reviewable by the courts. Article 356 was misused to topple elected governments and this was declared unconstitutional. This ruling gave more substance to federalism under the Basic Structure Doctrine.

2. Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016) - The Court held that the Governor cannot intervene in the work of the Legislative Assembly and adheres to the instructions of the Council of Ministers with the right to do it in the areas of discretion clearly stipulated in the Constitution.

3. Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006) - It was concluded by the Court that Governors are not allowed to suggest the dissolution of the Assembly based on personal political decisions.

4. Recent Cases (2023-24) - When hearing cases in states like Punjab, Tamil Nadu and Kerala, the Supreme Court noted that Governors can not indefinitely refuse to assent to bills, as this is contrary to the idea of responsible Government. The Court pointed out that constitutional morality demanded Governors to be neutral and timely.

Federalism and the Governor

Indian federalism has been referred to as quasi-federal with a powerful centre by KC Wheare. The Governor, as the representative of this asymmetry, is an appointee of the Union, but functions in the States. It is this friction which occurs when Governors are viewed as being representatives of the Union government and not as constitutional law-givers who will be neutral.

Examples:

1. This tension was marked in West Bengal and Maharashtra by differences between the elected State government and the Governor on law and order and assembly procedures.

2. In Tamil Nadu (2023), the Governor took a long time to sign bills and received a rebuke from the Supreme Court.

3. The Governor-Chief Minister conflict was reflected in Kerala (2022-23) in the case of the university appointments and ordinances.

Reforms Suggested

Reforms to bring the position of Governor to be more neutral have been suggested by several commissions and committees:

1. Sarkaria Commission (1988): The governors are to be eminent persons and not active politicians and they may be appointed after consultation with the Chief Minister of the State.

2. Punchhi Commission (2010): reduced the discretionary authority, established the tenure of Governors and stressed on cooperative federalism.

3. Constituent Assembly Debates: The debates presided by such leaders as B.R. Ambedkar did see the Governor as a non-partisan position, rather than a political one.

Civil Services Perspective

The position of Governor is a recurring element among the Polity, Governance, and Ethics in the case of UPSC aspirants:

1. GS Paper II: They can ask questions with respect to Centre-State relations, judicial interventions and the discretionary powers of the Governor.

2. Essay Paper: The issues of cooperative federalism and constitutional morality usually require a subtle comprehension of how the Governor operates.

3. Ethics (GS Paper IV): This issue of neutrality, non-partisanship and constitutional morality is of direct application to the Governor.

In terms of the civil services, the administrators should know that constitutional offices bring authority, but legitimacy is through impartiality, fairness and following the constitutional values.

Conclusion

The position of the Governor in Indian federalism is controversial and important at the same time. Federalism has been accepted as a component of the Basic Structure with the Supreme Court decisions increasingly limiting the misuse of powers. Political practice is, however, not always adherent to constitutional ideals, creating tension between the Union and States. To the civil servants and policymakers, the issue is how to foster cooperative federalism so that the Governor is not seen as a political expediency player but rather a constitutional protector of the fine balance of the federal system in India.