The Governor’s Role in Indian Politics: Constitutional Head or Political Pawn?

Introduction – The Debate Around the Governor’s Office

The office of the Governor is one of the most debated and controversial institutions in Indian politics. On paper, the Governor is the constitutional head of a state, meant to act impartially, safeguard democracy, and uphold the Constitution. Yet, in practice, the office has often been accused of being politicized—reduced to a tool of the Union government and ruling party at the Centre.

Over the decades, Governors have been praised for defending democratic values in some instances and criticized for destabilizing state governments in others. Their dual role—as the representative of the President (and thus the Union) and the head of a state—creates inherent tension. This duality lies at the heart of the question: Is the Governor truly a neutral constitutional head, or merely a political pawn?

Historical Context of the Governor’s Role

Colonial Legacy of the Office

The position of the Governor in India has colonial roots. Under the British Raj, Governors were representatives of the Crown with sweeping powers over provinces. After independence in 1947, India retained the office but redefined it within a federal, democratic Constitution.

The Constituent Assembly had extensive debates on the Governor’s powers. Leaders like B.R. Ambedkar emphasized that while the Governor would be appointed by the President, their role should remain constitutional, not political. Yet, the seeds of conflict between Centre and states were already planted.

The Governor in the Indian Constitution

Under Articles 153 to 162 of the Constitution, the Governor is appointed by the President for a five-year term. Their powers include:

• Summoning and dissolving the state legislature

• Giving assent to bills

• Recommending President’s Rule (Article 356)

• Appointing the Chief Minister when no clear majority exists

The expectation was that Governors would act on the aid and advice of the state’s Council of Ministers, except in a few discretionary areas. But interpretation of “discretion” has often created controversy.

The Governor as a Constitutional Head

Upholding the Spirit of Federalism

In theory, the Governor is a guardian of the Constitution. Their duty is to ensure that the state government functions within constitutional limits. For example, when a state passes laws, the Governor must ensure they do not violate the Constitution before giving assent.

The Governor also plays a key role during political instability, such as a hung assembly, by deciding who should form the government. Ideally, these decisions should be guided by constitutional morality and judicial precedent, not political convenience.

Safeguard Against Breakdown of Law and Order

Another constitutional duty is to report to the President if a state government cannot be carried on in accordance with the Constitution. This provision—Article 356—was meant to be used sparingly, only in emergencies. The Governor, in such cases, acts as the eyes and ears of the Centre.

In moments of crisis, the Governor’s impartiality can strengthen democracy. But history shows this power has often been misused.

The Governor as a Political Pawn

Frequent Misuse of Article 356

Perhaps the biggest criticism of Governors is their role in recommending President’s Rule. Since independence, Article 356 has been invoked over 125 times, often when state governments opposed the Centre’s ruling party.

The Supreme Court’s landmark S.R. Bommai case (1994) curbed this misuse by ruling that a majority should be tested on the floor of the House, not decided by the Governor. Yet, controversies persist whenever Governors recommend dismissing elected state governments.

Controversial Appointments and Partisan Behavior

Governors are appointed by the Union government, often from among retired politicians, bureaucrats, or party loyalists. This creates a perception of bias. Critics argue that Governors act less like impartial referees and more like agents of the Centre.

Recent instances in states like Maharashtra, West Bengal, and Tamil Nadu have reignited debates, with Governors accused of withholding assent to bills, delaying decisions, or making politically loaded statements.

Clash with Elected State Governments

The tension between Governors and Chief Ministers has become a recurring theme. In parliamentary federalism, the Governor is supposed to act on the advice of the state cabinet. However, when Governors assert discretionary powers beyond the intended scope, it often leads to constitutional crises.

Case Studies of Governor-Centre-State Tensions

Maharashtra (2019–2022)

The formation of government in Maharashtra after the 2019 elections sparked controversy when the Governor invited a party to form the government in the early hours without a public floor test. The episode was widely seen as a case of partisan discretion.

West Bengal

In recent years, the Governor of West Bengal has repeatedly clashed with the state government, publicly criticizing policies and even using social media to express disagreements. This raises questions about whether Governors should act as neutral constitutional heads or political actors.

Tamil Nadu

Frequent disputes between Governors and state governments over delays in bill assent have triggered debates in Tamil Nadu. In 2023, the Supreme Court even pulled up Governors for stalling elected legislatures’ decisions, calling it unconstitutional.

Judicial Interventions and Constitutional Safeguards

S.R. Bommai Case (1994)

The Supreme Court ruled that the Governor cannot dismiss a government on subjective grounds. A floor test in the assembly is the only valid way to determine majority. This judgment remains a cornerstone for limiting gubernatorial overreach.

Nabam Rebia Case (2016)

The Court ruled that the Governor cannot interfere in the functioning of the legislature or dictate how the Speaker should act. This further curtailed discretionary misuse.

Supreme Court’s Recent Observations

In 2023, the Court criticized Governors for sitting on bills indefinitely, stating that this undermines democracy. Judicial intervention has repeatedly reminded Governors to act within constitutional boundaries, but enforcement remains uneven.

The Governor’s Role in India’s Federal Structure

Centre vs. State Tensions

India is a quasi-federal state, with a strong Centre. The Governor embodies this imbalance, often becoming the Centre’s instrument to keep states in check. While some argue this ensures national unity, others view it as an attack on state autonomy.

The Sarkaria Commission Recommendations

The Sarkaria Commission (1988) studied Centre-state relations and recommended:

• Governors should be eminent persons, not active politicians.

• States should be consulted before appointments.

• Governors must act impartially and avoid partisan politics.

Unfortunately, these recommendations remain largely unimplemented.

Punchhi Commission (2010)

The Punchhi Commission reiterated that Governors should serve as neutral constitutional heads, not political tools. It emphasized the need for fixed tenures and accountability mechanisms to prevent arbitrary dismissals.

The Way Forward: Reforming the Governor’s Office

Transparent Appointments

A transparent, consultative process involving both the Centre and the concerned state can reduce partisanship. Including judicial or bipartisan committees in the selection process may also enhance credibility.

Limiting Discretionary Powers

Clearer guidelines are needed to define what constitutes “discretion.” Mandatory timelines for bill assent, floor tests, and communication with the Centre would prevent misuse.

Strengthening Federalism

India’s democratic maturity requires respecting state autonomy. Governors should focus on constitutional duties, not partisan politics.

Building Public Trust

The Governor’s office can play a positive role by facilitating cooperation between Centre and state, promoting constitutional values, and acting as a moral authority above politics. To achieve this, Governors must embrace impartiality and transparency.

Conclusion – A Balancing Act Between Symbol and Power

The Governor’s office was envisioned as a symbol of unity and constitutional guardianship. Yet, political realities have often turned it into a pawn in Centre-state battles.

While Governors are necessary for upholding constitutional order, their credibility depends on neutrality. Judicial interventions, commission recommendations, and public debates all point toward one truth: India needs Governors who are constitutional heads, not political pawns.

Reforming the office is not just about constitutional balance—it is about safeguarding the very spirit of India’s federal democracy.