The Governor of State Executive | Indian Constitution Download PDF
At the head of the executive power of a State is the Governor just as the President stands at the head of the executive power in the Governor and all executive action of the State has to be taken in the name of the Governor. Normally, there shall be a Governor for each State, but an amendment of 1956 makes it possible to appoint the same person as the Governor for the two or more States [Art. 153].
Appointment and term of Office of Governor
The Governor of a State is not elected but is appointed by the President and holds his office at the pleasure of the President.
Any citizen of India who has completed 35 years of Governor. age is eligible for the office, but he must not hold any other office of profit, nor be a member of the Legislature of the Union or of any State [Art. 158]. There is no bar to the selection of a Governor from amongst members of a Legislature but if a Member of a Legislature is appointed Governor, he ceases to be a Member immediately upon such appointment.
The normal term of a Governor’s office shall be five years, but it may be terminated earlier, by—
The grounds upon which a Governor may be removed by the President are not laid down in the Constitution, but it is obvious that this power will be sparingly used to meet with cases of gross delinquency, such as bribery, corruption, treason, and the like or violation of the Constitution.1
There is no bar to a person being appointed Governor more than once.
Why an Appointed Governor
The original plan in the Draft Constitution was to have elected Governors. But in the Constituent Assembly, it was replaced by the method of appointment by the President, upon the following arguments:
(a) It would save the country from the evil consequences of still another election, run on personal issues. To sink every province into the vortex of an election with millions of primary voters but with no possible issue other than personal, would be highly detrimental to the country’s progress.
(b) If the Governor were to be elected by direct vote, then he might consider himself to be superior to the Chief Minister, who was merely returned from a single constituency, and this might lead to frequent friction between the Governor and the Chief Minister.
But under the Parliamentary system of Government prescribed by the Constitution, the Governor was to be constitutional head of the State—the real executive power being vested in the Ministry responsible to the Legislature.
“When the whole of the executive power is vested in the Council of Ministers, if there is another person who believes that he has got the backing of the province behind him, and, therefore, at his discretion he can come forward and intervene in the governance of the province, it would really amount to a surrender of democracy.”
(c) The expenses involved and the elaborate machinery of election would be out of proportion to the powers vested in this Governor who was to act as a mere constitutional head.
(d) A Governor elected by adult franchise to be at the top of the political life in the State would soon prefer to be the Chief Minister or a Minister with effective powers. The party in power during the election would naturally put up for Governorship a person who was not as outstanding as the future Chief Minister with the result that the State would not be able to get the best man of the party. All the process of election would have to be gone through only to get a second rate man of the party elected as Governor. Being subsidiary in importance to the Chief Minister, he would be the nominee of the Chief Minister of the State, which was not a desirable thing.
(e) Through the procedure of appointment by the President, the Union Government would be able to maintain intact its control over the States.
(f) The method of election would encourage separatist tendencies. The Governor would then be the nominee of the Government of that particular province to stand for the Governorship. The stability and unity of the Governmental machinery of the country as a whole could be achieved only by adopting the system of nomination.
“He should be a more detached figure acceptable to the province, otherwise he could not function, and yet may not be a part of the party machine of the province. On the whole it would probably be desirable to have people from outside, eminent in something, education or other fields of life who would naturally co-operate fully with the Government in carrying out the policy of the Government and yet represent before the public something above politics.
The arguments which were advanced, in the Constituent Assembly, against nomination are also worthy of consideration:
(i) A nominated Governor would not be able to work for the welfare of a State because he would be a foreigner to that State and would not be able to understand its special needs.
(ii) There was a chance of friction between the Governor and the Chief Minister of the State no less under the system of nomination, if the Premier of the State did not belong to the same party as the nominated Governor.
(iii) The argument that the system of election would not be compatible with the Parliamentary or Cabinet system of Government is not strong enough in view of the fact that even at the Centre there is an elected President to be advised by a Council of Ministers. Of course, the election of the President is not direct but indirect.
(iv) An appointed Governor under the instruction of the Centre might like to run the administration in a certain way country to the wishes of the Cabinet. In this tussle, the Cabinet would prevail and the President appointed Governor would have to be recalled. The system of election, therefore, was far more compatible with good, better and efficient Government plus the right of self-Government.
(v) The method of appointment of the head of the State executive by the federal executive is repugnant to the strict federal system as it obtains in the U.S.A. and Australia.
Status of Appointed Government
In actual working, it may be said that in States where one party has a clear majority, the part played by the Governor has been that of a constitutional and impartial head, but in those States where there are multiple parties with an uncertain command over the Legislature, the Governor has acted as a mere agent of the Centre in various matters, such a person to form a Ministry, because he belonged to the ruling party at the Centre, even though he had no clear following (as in the case of Sri Rajagopalachari in Madras, after the General election in 1952) or bringing about the removal of a Ministry having the confidence of the Legislature, by means of a report under Art. 356 (as happened in Kerala in 1959, in the case of the Communist Ministry headed by Sri Namboodiripad). Nevertheless, there is one aspect in which the system of appointing an outsider by the Centre has proved to be beneficial, and that is the prevention of disruptive and separatist forces from impairing the national unity and strength as might otherwise have been possible without the knowledge of the Centre, under a locally elected Governor.
It is from this standpoint alone that one can tolerate the patently undemocratic instances of appointing a retiring or a retired member of the Indian Civil Service or the Indian Administrative Service (who is obviously a veteran bureaucrat) or of the Armed Forces as a Governor.
Conditions of Governors Office
A Governor gets a monthly emolument of Rs. 1,10,00 together with the use of an official residence free of rent and also Governor’s office. such allowances and privileges as are specified in the Governor’s (Emoluments, Allowances and Privileges) Act, 1982 as amended in 2009 (w.e.f. 1-1-2006). The emolument and allowances of a Governor shall not be diminished during his term of office.
Powers of the The Governor has no diplomatic or military Governor. powers like the President, but he possesses executive,
legislative and judicial powers analogous to those of the President.
Powers of the Governor
I. Executive. Apart from the power to appoint his Council of Ministers, the Governor has die power to appoint the Advocate-General and the Members of the State Public Service Commission. The Ministers as well as Advocate-General hold office dining the pleasure of the Governor, but the Members of the State Public Service Commission cannot be removed by him, they can be removed only by the President on the report of the Supreme Court on reference made by the President and, in some cases, on the happening of certain disqualifications \Art. 317].
The Governor has no power to appoint Judges of the State High Court but he is entided to be consulted by the President in the matter \Art. 217(1)].
Like the President, the Governor has the power to nominate members of the Anglo-Indian community to the Legislative Assembly of his State, if he is satisfied that they are not adequately represented in the Assembly; but while the President’s corresponding power with regard to the House of the People is limited to a maximum of two members, in the case of the Governor the limit is one member only, since the Constitution (23rd Amendment) Act, 1969 [Art. 333].
As regards the upper Chamber of the State Legislature (in States where the Legislature is bi-cameral), namely, the Legislative Council, the Governor has a power of nomination of members corresponding to the power of the President in relation to the Council of States, and the power is simlarly exercisable in respect of “persons having special knowledge or practical experience in respect of matters such as literature, science, co-operative movement and social service” [Art. 171(5)]. It is to be noted that ‘co¬operative movement’ is not included in the corresponding list relating to the Council of States. The Governor can so nominate 1/6 part of the total members of the Legislative Council.
II. Legislative. As regards legislative powers, the Governor is a part of the State Legislature [Art. 164] just as the President is a part of Parliament. Again, he has a right of addressing and sending messages, and summoning, proroguing and dissolving, in relation to the State Legislature, just as the President has in relation to Parliament.6 He also possesses a similar power of causing to be laid before the State Legislature the annual financial statement [Art. 202] and of making demands for grants and recommending ‘Money Bills’ [Art. 207],
His powers of ‘veto’ over State legislation and of making Ordinances are dealt with separately. (See Chapter 14 “Governor’s power of veto” and “Ordinance-making power of Governor”.)
III. Judicial. The Governor has the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remission of punishments or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence against any law relating to a matter to which executive power of the State extends [Art. 161]. He is also consulted by the President in the appointment of the Chief Justice and the Judges of the High Court of the State.
IV. Emergency Power. The Governor has no emergency powers to meet the situation arising from external aggression or armed rebellion as the President has [Art. 352(1)], but he has the power to make a report to the President whenever he is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution [Art. 356], thereby inviting the President to assume to himself the functions of the Government of the State or any of them. [This is popularly known as ‘President’s Rule’.]