Editorial 2 : Raj Bhavan’s Boundaries
Context: Supreme Court’s judgment on Tamil Nadu governor.
Office of the Governor
- Origin
- The office of the governor was retained post-independence to preserve national unity, stability, and security.
- Inspired by colonial-era structures but intended to act as a neutral constitutional figure.
- Founders’ Intent
- Jawaharlal Nehru: Advocated appointing eminent, apolitical individuals (e.g. academics) as governors.
- B.N. Rau (Constitutional Advisor): Proposed election by provincial legislatures via secret ballot.
- Sardar Patel: Suggested direct election by state citizens with impeachment provisions for misconduct.
- B.R. Ambedkar: Settled for nomination, arguing governors are nominal heads. Elections would be costly and redundant.
Current Challenges and Partisanship
- Overreach by Governors
- Instances: Delaying/denying assent to bills, interfering in appointments (e.g. vice-chancellors), editing customary addresses, and undermining legislative councils.
- Impact: Strained relations with opposition-led state governments (e.g. Tamil Nadu and Punjab cases).
- Partisan Behaviour
- Governors often act as agents of the central ruling party rather than impartial constitutional authorities.
- Security of tenure is lacking, making governors susceptible to political pressures.
Judicial Interventions: Key Supreme Court Rulings
- April 2025 Judgment (Justices Pardiwala & Mahadevan)
- Stripped governors of absolute discretion under Article 200 to withhold assent to bills.
- Imposed strict timelines for assent, reconsideration, or reserving bills for presidential review.
- Declared Tamil Nadu Governor’s actions (withholding 10 bills) as arbitrary and unconstitutional.
- Raghukul Tilek Case (1979): Affirmed that governors hold a high constitutional office, not subordinate to the Centre.
- Invocation of Article 142: Enabled the Court to enforce timelines, ensuring federal balance.
Constitutional and Structural Flaws
- Ambiguity in Discretion
- Discretionary powers (e.g. assent to bills) often misused for political ends.
- Five Principles of Discretion
- Must be reasonable and cautious.
- Cannot be exercised under external dictation.
- Requires application of mind to facts.
- Must avoid improper motives or irrelevant considerations.
- Cannot be arbitrary or whimsical.
- Lack of Accountability
- No security of tenure or impeachment mechanism, unlike judges.
- Governors serve at the pleasure of the President, making them vulnerable to central influence.
Way Forward: Recommendations
- Security of Tenure: Provide fixed terms and removal safeguards, similar to judges, to ensure independence.
- Consultative Appointments: Implement Sarkaria Commission (1983) recommendations.
- Consult state CMs, Vice-President, and Lok Sabha Speaker during appointments.
- Give state CMs veto power over governor appointments.
- Codify Discretionary Powers: Legislate clear guidelines for assent to bills, aligning with Supreme Court timelines.
- Revive the Federal Intent
- Ensure governors act as neutral advisors, not political operatives.
- Strengthen state autonomy over 66 subjects in the Seventh Schedule.
Conclusion: The office of the governor was envisioned as a stabilizing force, but has devolved into a tool for central interference. Judicial interventions have curtailed abuses, but structural reforms are critical to restore the federal balance.