Governor vs. State: Supreme Court draws the line

(The Indian Express has launched a new series of articles for UPSC aspirants written by seasoned writers and scholars on issues and concepts spanning History, Polity, International Relations, Art, Culture and Heritage, Environment, Geography, Science and Technology, and so on. Read and reflect with subject experts and boost your chance of cracking the much-coveted UPSC CSE. In the following article, Dr. Akhil Kumar delves into the role and power of the Governor in light of the recent ruling by the Supreme Court.)
Recently, the Supreme Court, for the first time, ruled that the President should take a decision on the Bills reserved for consideration by the Governor within three months from the date on which such reference is received.
Under Article 201 of the Constitution, the Governor has the power to reserve a Bill – passed by both Houses of the State Legislature – for the consideration of the President.
The apex court invoked its special power under Article 142 and called for a decision within three months and added, 'in case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed' to the state concerned.
The April 8 ruling came in response to Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi's prolonged inaction over 10 crucial State Bills, withholding of consent on them and the subsequent reservation of the re-passed Bills to President Droupadi Murmu for her consideration in November 2023.
Tension between the States and Governors often emerges due to the proviso to Article 200, which states that the Governor 'may, as soon as possible' grant assent to the Bills without specifying any definitive timeline.
Therefore, the apex court's ruling calls for a closer examination of the Constitutional provisions dealing with the role of Governors and their relations with the state, specifically in view of the fact that the Constitution has set no timeframe for a Presidential decision on a Bill reserved for consideration by the Governor.
First, let's look into the appointment and role of a Governor.
Appointment and qualifications of Governor
The Constitution has laid provisions for the appointment of a Governor. Article 153 states, 'There shall be a Governor for each State.' Article 155 says that the 'Governor of a State shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal'. Under Article 156, 'the Governor shall hold office during the pleasure of the President', but his normal term of office will be five years.
If the President withdraws her pleasure before the completion of five years, the Governor has to step down. Since the President acts on the aid and advice of the Prime Minister and the Union Council of Ministers, in effect, the Governor is appointed and removed by the central government.
Articles 157 and 158 enunciate the qualifications of the Governor and the conditions of his office: (i) the Governor must be a citizen of India and has attained the age of 35 years; (ii) the Governor should not be a member of Parliament or a state legislature, and must not hold any other office of profit.
Roles of the Governor
The Constitution also specifies that the Governor must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers of the state. Article 163 states: 'There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions, except in so far as he is by or under this Constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion.'
The Constitution also empowers the Governor to summon, prorogue, or dissolve the State Assembly. However, the Governor can exercise this power only after due consultation with the Council of Ministers.
As the executive head of the state, the Governor is entrusted with powers such as the appointment of the Chief Minister, Council of Ministers, Advocate General, State Election Commissioner, State Universities officials, Chairman and members of the State Public Service Commission and others.
What recent judgement by the top court says
The Governor enjoys certain powers under the Constitution such as giving or withholding assent to a Bill passed by both Houses of the State Legislature. Under Article 200 of the Constitution, the Governor has several options:
— To grant assent to the bill,
— To withhold assent,
— To return the bill (if it is not a money bill) for consideration by the State Legislature, and
— To reserve the bill for the President's consideration.
However, proviso to Article 200 also states that the executive head of the State must return the bill 'as soon as possible' but it does not mention any stipulated time, which has sometimes resulted in long delays in gubernatorial action.
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court addressed this issue and laid down time-bound guidelines for the Governors to act upon a Bill:
— Granting assent within one month,
— Not withholding assent contrary to the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers,
— Return a Bill within three months,
— Expressing reservations on the bill within three months, and
— If the Bill is reconsidered and passed again by the Legislature, the Governor must grant assent within one month.
Don't Miss | The world this week | India, Pak ties hit another low after Pahalgam terror attack, New Delhi, Ottawa to reset strained ties, US threatens sanctions against Iranian oil buyers
Committees and judgements on the Governor's role
In various instances, the role of the Governor, along with the scope of their powers and functions, has been a recurring subject, which was scrutinized by various committees appointed by the Centre and the Supreme Court of India.
From the Administrative Reforms Commission in 1969 to the Punchhi Commission in 2007, several panels constituted by various governments recommended wide-ranging reforms regarding the Governor's selection process, powers, functions, tenure, impeachment and other matters.
The Sarkaria Commission (1988) examined the centre-state relations and suggested reforms regarding the Governor's power under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.
The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2001), chaired by M.N. Venkatachaliah and initiated by the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government, observed that Governors, as representatives of the Centre, often act as its agents, and decisions taken by them often evoke controversy.
The Punchhi Commission (2007) reviewed the existing arrangements between the centre and the States and recommended that the Governor must be appointed with the consultation of the Chief Minister of the concerned state and there must be a timely decision by the Governor on the bills passed by the Legislature.
To ensure impartial functioning, the office of the Governor did come under judicial scrutiny on several occasions, with the Supreme Court of India delivering key observations to rein in the Governor's power in several landmark judgments. These rulings served as points of reference in subsequent cases and shaped the functioning of this constitutional office. Some of them are:
In Shamsher Singh vs State of Punjab (1974), the court declared that the Governor must act only on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. In 1979, in Raghukul Tilak's case, the court held that Governors are not mere employees of the Centre but hold a high constitutional office in their respective states they are appointed.
The S R Bommai vs Union of India (1994) can be considered a landmark judgement over the Governor's decision on the President's rule (Article 356) as it laid down clear guidelines that the floor test is final to prove the majority and the Governor's actions are subject to judicial scrutiny.
In 2006, in Rameshwar Prasad vs Union of India with reference to the dissolution of Bihar state legislative assembly, the court firmly made it clear that the Governor's individual opinion cannot be a valid reason for the imposition of President's rule in any State.
Post Read Questions
What are the broader constitutional implications of the Supreme Court's ruling in Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi's prolonged inaction over 10 crucial State Bills on Governor-State relations?
What does the ruling imply about the evolving role of the judiciary in interpreting executive powers at the state level?
Why is the absence of a definitive timeline in Article 200 seen as problematic in Centre-State relations?
How do constitutional provisions aim to balance the Governor's formal authority with the democratic functioning of the elected state government?
(Dr. Akhil Kumar is a PhD in Political Science from University of Hyderabad.)

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Hindustan Times

39 minutes ago

• Hindustan Times

War Powers Act vs. Article II: Is the US bombing of Iran constitutional? Could Trump be impeached?

On Saturday night, President Donald Trump took to Truth Social to announce that the United States had conducted what he described as a 'very successful attack' on three Iranian nuclear facilities—Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. Donald Trump said US had conducted 'successful attack' on three Iranian nuclear facilities.(AP) 'We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home," Trump wrote. "Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE! Thank you for your attention to this matter,' he added. The announcement reignited a constitutional debate, with critics pointing to a June 16 post on X by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who called such strikes unconstitutional. 'This is not our war. But if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution. I'm introducing a bipartisan War Powers Resolution to prohibit our involvement,' he had tweeted. Also Read: Iran Israel war news LIVE updates: US strikes on Iran a 'spectacular military success,' says Trump What Is the War Powers Act? Enacted in 1973 over President Richard Nixon's veto, the War Powers Resolution (WPR) was designed to limit the president's ability to engage US forces in military conflicts without congressional approval. It followed public outrage over Nixon's secret bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War, which resulted in significant civilian casualties and sparked widespread protests. The WPR requires the president to: Notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying U.S. forces into 'hostilities' or situations where hostilities are imminent. End military actions within 60 days (or 90 days in emergencies) unless Congress approves continued engagement through a declaration of war or specific authorization. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Rep. Massie have argued that Trump's strikes on Iran violate the WPR, as they were launched without congressional approval. What does Article II say? Trump's supporters, citing Article II of the Constitution, argue that as 'Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy,' the president has broad authority to direct military operations. 'The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment,' the article states. However, this power is constrained by Article I, Section 8, which grants Congress the authority to 'declare war' and regulate the armed forces Legal scholar John Yoo, speaking to Fox News Digital, defended Trump's actions. He argued that a limited airstrike does not constitute 'war' in the constitutional sense and thus doesn't require congressional approval. 'As a legal matter, the president doesn't need the permission of Congress to engage in hostilities abroad. But as a political matter, it's very important for the president to go to Congress and present the united front to our enemies,' he told Fox News Digital. Also Read: US bombs Iran: 10 key developments after strikes on nuclear sites Can Trump be impeached? Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution allows impeachment for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." If Congress determines that violating the WPR or bypassing its constitutional war powers constitutes a 'high crime,' impeachment could be pursued.

Hans India

40 minutes ago

• Hans India

Judicial reforms must if India aspires to become a global leader by 2047

As India prepares to celebrate 100 years of its independence in 2047, the nation stands at a critical juncture, one that calls not just for reflection, but for resolute reaffirmation of the foundational ideals enshrined in our Constitution, that is, equality, justice, fraternity, inclusivity, and liberty. However, if our intent, content, character, and commitment to these ideals are compromised, no vision, no matter how grand, can lead to genuine, sustainable progress. Lofty slogans, glittering events, and ambitious roadmaps may create temporary excitement, but without authentic adherence to our core democratic values, such displays are hollow. They amount to little more than hype, hoopla, and hypocrisy. India's journey from colonial rule to becoming the world's largest democracy is a powerful story of resilience and aspiration. Yet, as we look toward 2047, celebrating a century of freedom cannot simply be an act of commemoration. It must be a collective mission to realize the unfulfilled promises of independence. True development cannot be built on foundations where voices are silenced, inequalities deepen, or where institutions falter due to compromised ethics. A nation can only rise as high as the strength of its moral spine, and this strength is defined not by rhetoric, but by action rooted in fairness, truth, and unity. A troubling paradox persists but no one is bothered. Nearly 85 per cent of the population, comprising Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), and other economically disadvantaged communities, continues to grapple with entrenched socio-economic, educational, and political deprivation. Despite decades of constitutional safeguards and welfare policies, the journey toward equitable development remains riddled with systemic barriers and broken promises. SCs, STs, and OBCs, along with the rural and urban poor from other communities, overwhelmingly occupy the bottom rung of India's socio-economic pyramid. Their lives are often marked by landlessness, insecure livelihoods, wage exploitation, and poor access to health and nutrition. A significant proportion remains dependent on the informal sector, which offers neither security nor dignity. The intersection of caste and poverty further compounds the exclusion, as Dalits and Adivasis continue to face discrimination in accessing even the most basic services like housing, clean drinking water, and sanitation. Even within economic growth narratives, the benefits have remained concentrated among the upper-caste urban elite, with only marginal trickle-down effects. Wealth inequality has widened alarmingly, with the richest 10 per cent holding over 75 per cent of the country's wealth, while the poorest majority are denied the opportunity to break free from generational poverty. Education remains a powerful tool for emancipation but for the marginalized, it is often out of reach or poor in quality. Despite affirmative action policies such as reservations in educational institutions, dropout rates remain disproportionately high among SCs and STs, particularly at the secondary and higher levels. Majority of rural and government schools suffer from understaffing, poor infrastructure, caste bias, and language barriers, conditions that particularly disadvantage first-generation learners. Moreover, digital exclusion during the COVID-19 pandemic laid bare the inequalities in access to technology and online education. Students from marginalized families were left behind, deepening the already wide learning gap. While the Constitution provides for political reservation for SCs and STs in legislative bodies, real political empowerment remains elusive. In many instances, elected representatives from marginalized communities serve as mere figureheads, with actual decision-making controlled by dominant social groups. Tokenism and co-optation have replaced genuine inclusion, and grassroots participation in governance is minimal. Furthermore, policy-making continues to be shaped by upper-caste bureaucracies and think tanks, with limited representation of the lived experiences and voices of the deprived majority. Despite the rise of some regional political formations centered around OBC and Dalit identities, the larger structure of Indian politics remains steeply unequal and resistant to transformative change. India's democratic promise will remain incomplete unless it fundamentally addresses the historical and structural inequalities faced by its marginalized majority. This calls for redistributive justice, radical educational reform, and authentic political representation. True nation-building will require dismantling caste and class hierarchies, not just in words, but in practice, through inclusive growth, dignity for all, and a renewed commitment to constitutional morality. Our judiciary, often hailed as the guardian of democracy, is grappling with a crisis that threatens the very essence of justice—delay. The principle - justice delayed is justice denied – has never been more relevant, as over 5 crore cases are currently pending in Indian courts (National Judicial Data Grid, May 2025). Of these, more than 4.2 crore are pending in subordinate courts, 60 lakh in High Courts, and over 80,000 in the Supreme Court. Shockingly, more than 2.5 crore cases have been pending for over one year, and over 50 lakh for more than 10 years, reflecting a judicial system crippled by chronic delays. The average time to dispose of a civil case in India often stretches between 8 to 15 years, depending on the jurisdiction. One of the key causes is the severe shortage of judges. India has just 21.03 judges per million population as compared to 107 in the US and 51 in the UK (Law Commission of India, 2014, reaffirmed in 2023 by NITI Aayog). Additionally, frequent adjournments, outdated procedures, and inadequate court infrastructure compound the delays. This wait is not just a legal issue. It has deep human and economic costs. Victims languish without closure, undertrials rot in jails, and businesses suffer due to commercial disputes stuck in litigation for years. According to the Economic Survey 2018, judicial delays cost India up to 1.5 per cent of its GDP annually. If India aspires to be a global leader by 2047, judicial reforms must be treated as a national emergency. Justice cannot be a privilege for the few. It must be timely, transparent, and accessible for all. The idea of a free, fair, and equitable India in 2047 must be a lived reality for all. Let 2047 not just be a milestone in our history, but a testament to a conscious civilizational leap, a moment when India proves that its growth is as just as it is rapid, as inclusive as it is innovative, and as principled as it is powerful.

Indian Express

an hour ago

• Indian Express

Eleven years: a data-based critique

This is a sequel to last week's column (Eleven Years: A Critique, Indian Express, June 15, 2025). I am fond of data that is accurate and verifiable but, alas, most readers are not. Even educated persons shy away when presented with numbers. I believe that numbers capture the picture (of an economy) more truthfully than words. If the ultimate test of good governance is the well-being of the people, the question is, 'Does a person have enough income for necessities such as food, dwelling, education, healthcare, transport, family gatherings and recreation?' (I have left out other expenditure which, due to changing times, may be considered essential). The best official data available are in the Household Consumption Expenditure Survey (HCES). In my view, the metric of consumption, rather than income, measures the standard and quality of life of the average family. The last HCES was conducted in 2023-24, covered the whole country, and information was collected from 2,61,953 households (1,54,357 rural and 1,07,596 urban). Incidentally, Mr Narendra Modi's government completed ten years in 2023-24. HCES data is comprehensive. The heart of the survey is the data on average Monthly Per Capita Consumption Expenditure (MPCE). What is a person's consumption expenditure in a month sums up the standard and quality of his/her life, whether rich or poor or middle class. Fortunately, the data is available by fractile classes of the population, i.e. by segmenting the population into each 10 per cent. Here is the data: 2011-12 2023-24 Fractile classes in Rupees in Rupees of MPCE Rural Urban Rural Urban 0 – 5 % 521 701 1,677 2,376 5 – 10 % 666 909 2,126 3,093 20 – 30% 905 1,363 2,833 4,353 40 – 50 % 1,136 1,888 3,498 5,622 70 – 80 % 1,645 3,063 4,885 8,353 90 – 95 % 2,556 5,350 6,929 12,817 95 – 100 % 4,481 10,282 10,137 20,310 Average All India 1,430 2,630 4,122 6,996 It will be seen that— 🔴 Expenditure is a proxy for income and borrowing. The persons in the bottom 10 per cent have an expenditure of Rs 50-100 per day. Ask yourself, with Rs 50-100 a day, what kind of food can a person consume? What kind of dwelling can a person have? What kind of medical care or medicines can the person afford? 🔴 Ten percent of the population is not an insignificant number: it is 14 crore people. If they were a separate country, it will be ranked 10th in the world in terms of population. Yet, the NITI Aayog and the government claim that the 'poor' are only 5 per cent or less of the total population. The claim is cruel and dishonest. 🔴 The most relevant comparator is the ratio of the per capita expenditure of the top 5 per cent and the bottom 5 per cent. Twelve years ago it was approximately 12 times; in 2023-24 it is still approximately 7.5 times. Government has claimed that agricultural growth is robust, but is the farmer's life robust? Data from NABARD (2021-22) showed that nearly 55 per cent of agricultural households are burdened with debt. The average outstanding loan per household is Rs 91,231. According to a Lok Sabha reply on February 3, 2025, 13.08 crore farmers owed Rs 27,67,346 crore to commercial banks; 3.34 crore farmers owed Rs 2,65,419 crore to co-operative banks and 2.31 crore farmers owed Rs 3,19,881 crore to regional rural banks. The PM Kisan scheme is riddled with holes. The peak enrollment was 10.47crore in April-July 2022. It declined to 8.1 crore in 2023 (15th installment) and government claimed it had risen to 9.8 crore in February 2025 (19th installment). The gyrations are inexplicable. Unjustifiably, tenant farmers are not eligible. The crop insurance scheme was refined and re-introduced by the UPA government. Private insurers were allowed and the government directed the insurance companies to run the scheme on a 'no profit, no loss' basis. On the other hand, the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY), implemented by the NDA, has become an extortionate scheme: the claims paid as a proportion of gross premiums collected has declined from 87 per cent in 2019-20 to 56 per cent in 2023-24. The critical social security scheme — MGNREGS — has received a stagnant allocation in the last three years. Over 1.5 crore active job cards have been deleted. The average number of days of work is 51 as against the promised 100 days. Instead of being a demand-driven scheme, it has become a fund-starved scheme. The 5 kg free grain per person to 80 crore persons leaves out 10 crore eligible citizens. Despite free rations and the mid-day meal scheme, stunting among children is 35.5 per cent and wasting among children is 19.3 per cent. In the Global Hunger Index, India ranks 105 out of 127 countries. The share of manufacturing in GVA has fallen from 17.4 per cent in 2011-12 to 13.9 per cent in 2024-25. The vaunted Production-Linked Incentive scheme is a spectacular failure: 14 sectors were allocated Rs 1,96,409 crore but only Rs 14,020 crore has been disbursed. Being the fastest growing large economy does not mean that the Indian economy is in good health or will eradicate poverty or make India a developed country. Every ten years, India needs another dose of structural reforms, decentralization of powers to States, massive de-regulation, more competition and the government 'getting out of the way'.