On Saturday (July 28), President Droupadi Murmu appointed Governors for Rajasthan, Telangana, Maharashtra, Punjab, Sikkim, Meghalaya, Assam, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh, Lakshman Prasad Acharya has been asked to discharge the functions of Manipur Governor in additional capacity along with his duties till regular arrangements are made, it said.
State Governors are appointed by the President of India and they act as agents for the Centre. The post is about what the title states, as per the Indian Constitution, and why sometimes the relationship between Governors and state government gets strained.
How is the New Governor of a state appointed?
In the Indian Constitution: Article 153 — Each state shall have a Governor. Some years hence from the inception of the Constitution, an amendment was passed in 1956 to this effect – “nothing in this article shall prevent the appointment of the same person as Governor of more than one State.”
President unions triumvirate, Article 155 says then that “The Governor of a State shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal”. 156 Governor to hold office during pleasure of President but 5-year normal term.
If the President does not agree with them before completing five years, then he will have to vacate the post of Governor. Therefore, the President is bound by the aid and advice of the Prime Minister on a union council of ministers similar to the State cabinet for the Governor he appointed or removed at will by the central government.
Who is eligible to be high court and also such for appointment as a state Governor?
Articles 157 and 158 deal with the eligibility criteria of the Governor as well as terms of appointment. The governor shall be a citizen of India and have completed 35 years. The Governor shall not be a member of Parliament or the state legislature and shall hold no other office of profit.
Also read: Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee’s Bold Statement ‘Offers Shelter to Bangladeshi Refugees’.
What is the relationship between the Governor and the state government?
The Governor is envisioned as an apolitical head of the state who has to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers regarding policies & actions. Article 163: “There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at its head to aid and advice Governor in the exercise of his functions, except in so far as he is by or under this Constitution required to exercise his function or nay for them discretionary.
That apart, the Governor has certain rights under our immense Constitution — like being able to sign or opt not to a Bill passed by state legislature; and decide on how long is needed for a party who claims majority needs (in this instance, say Husain was confident of numbers before he abruptly decided otherwise); and in situations where there isn’t an outright winner after elections viz. which party should be treated as first preference when it comes showing proof its claim behind him/party with at his back/resting faith majority – that give ample weightage to his position.
Also read: Budget 2024 Highlights: Key Factors, New Tax Slab, LTCG and STCG, Standard Deductions Increase.
For long, Governors have been looked at as doing the bidding of the central government in office — all Opposition state governments complain your Governor is acting at “behest” and say they are behaving like “agents of Centre”.
Finally, there are no constitutional provisions about how the Governor and state government should communicate to the public when they disagree. The bottom line in each of these cases has been (fairly) an agreement to respect what is commonly referred to as “blow open” rules. However, in recent times there have been bitter and acrimonious exchanges erupting between state governments and Governors like R N Ravi (Nagaland) or even Meghalaya Governor Arif Mohammed Khan who have been accused of partisan conduct by the Chief Ministers (of Tamil Nadu, Kerala respectively).
But how can there be this friction?
Earlier, constitutional expert Dr. Faizan Mustafa had told The Indian Express that “Governors have become political appointees”. The Governor is intended to be non-political by the Constituent Assembly. Politicians become Governors and then they resign to fight elections.
Constitutional analyst Alok Prasanna of Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy stated: The CM is accountable to the individuals. But the Governor has to be answered only by the Centre. You can wrap it up with constitutional morality & values, but the fact of the matter is that there’s an innate flaw in the Constitution.
After all, there is no way that the Governor can be impeached, and in case of a bitter struggle sustained over a prolonged period between state and Central governments, Raj Bhavan may unlimitedly continue to create problems indefinitely for five years.
The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, which sat in 2001 and was set up by the Vajpayee NDA government noted: “Since a person holding this office (Governor) owes his appointment and continuance in office only to Union Council of Ministers for so long as it decides each time there is a conflict between State Government on one hand freedom with which Governor can act without leaking into instructions etc., from any quarter will come under glare scrutiny.
