Governor: Politicisation Of The Office

Dr BR Ambedkar said, "However good a Constitution may be, if those who are implementing it are not good, it will prove to be bad. However bad a Constitution may be, if those implementing it are good, it will prove to be good." More than any other constitutional position, it applies to Governors.

As a lynchpin, the Governor has to do bridge building. The Governor is like a long arm of the Union with an iron fist and velvet gloves. He has to communicate the state's aspirations to the Union and at the same time bring a national perspective to the state level.

The Governor is the constitutional head of the state and the chief executive head of the state, whose powers are enshrined in Part VI of the Constitution. The Governor also acts as an agent of the central government. These notes sit in our Indian Polity collection, and you can find the full library of study notes at Resources.

The office in the Constitution

• Article 153: there shall be a Governor for each state, and the same person can be appointed as Governor for more than one state.
• Article 154: the executive power of the state is vested in the Governor.

Background

According to Paul Brass, India's Constitution was conceived not in an atmosphere of hope, but of fear and trepidation. Following independence, the real and pressing challenge was to unite India, as partition and secessionist challenges persisted. As a result, the framers of the Constitution expressed concern that it could result in the Balkanization of India. Thus, the Governor's institution was supposed to be critical in maintaining order and checking secessionist trends in states.

What permits the Union government to abuse the office of Governor?

Appointment: Governors are appointed by the President on the advice of the Union executive. Additionally, the Constitution contains no specific qualifications, leaving Governor appointments to the sole discretion of the Union executive.

Removal system: Often, the Governor is referred to as an "agent of the Union", as he serves at the pleasure of the Union government. The President, in effect the central government, has the power to remove a Governor at any time without giving him or her any reason, and without granting an opportunity to be heard.

Governor's discretionary powers: Article 163 states that the Governor shall be assisted and advised by a Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister, except in situations where the Constitution requires the Governor to act in his discretion. It also states that the Governor's use of these powers is entirely discretionary and shall not be challenged in court on the grounds that the Governor should have used, or should not have used, his discretionary power.

Reforms recommended so far

Appointment system

• Rajamannar Committee: it recommended that the Governor be appointed only after consultation with the Chief Minister, and that if the Chief Minister is uneasy, the person should not be appointed.
• Punchhi Commission: it recommended that the Governor be appointed through the inter-state council's platform. It held that a list of eminent persons can be compiled through consultation, and that when vacancies occur, individuals from the list may be appointed. It also suggested that rather than leaving qualifications such as "eminent person" and "no active political background" to conventions, it is preferable to include them explicitly in the Constitution.
• Sarkaria Commission: the Governor should be eminent in some field and from outside the state. He should be a disinterested figure with no strong political ties, or he should have stayed out of politics in recent years. He should also be a non-member of the ruling party.

System of removal

• Supreme Court, in B.P. Singhal vs Union of India (2010): it held that there is no need to change the pleasure doctrine, and the Governor can be removed as and when the Union government thinks. There is also no need to give an explanation to the Governor or allow the Governor to present his case. However, the Governor should otherwise be allowed to complete the term ordinarily, unless there are compelling reasons for removal. Further, the action of the executive can be challenged on the ground of malafide intention.
• Sarkaria Commission: in the process of removal, the state government may be informed and consulted.
• Punchhi Commission (2010): it recommended that the phrase "during the pleasure of the President" should be deleted from the Constitution, because a Governor should not be removed at the whim of the central government. Instead, he or she should be removed only by a resolution of the state legislature.

Why it still matters

This is not just an old debate for exam notes. The exact problem these notes describe, a Governor sitting on decisions instead of acting, reached the Supreme Court very recently.

In State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, decided on 8 April 2025, the court looked at ten Bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly. The Governor, R.N. Ravi, had held on to them, in one case for well over a year, without giving assent or sending them back. Two judges, Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, called this withholding "illegal" and "erroneous". They used the court's special power under Article 142 to treat the ten Bills as if the Governor had assented to them, and they even fixed time limits within which Governors and the President must act on Bills.

That was a big moment for state governments. But the story did not end there. On 20 November 2025, a larger five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai gave an advisory opinion on a Presidential Reference that pulled much of it back. It held that courts cannot set rigid deadlines for a Governor or the President, that there is no such thing as "deemed assent", and that these assent decisions are generally not for courts to second-guess. The one exception it kept: if a Governor sits on a Bill with "prolonged, unexplained and indefinite inaction", the courts can still step in.

So the tension in these notes is completely live. The Constitution still does not say how long a Governor may take, and Governors appointed by the Centre keep clashing with state governments run by rival parties. This is the modern face of the "politicisation" problem the reformers worried about decades ago. You can see how ideas like federalism and the separation of powers connect across subjects in the Learnacy Hub.

Conclusion

True to the spirit of federalism enshrined in the Constitution, the Centre should function in tandem with the states to address inter-state disparities, and Governors should work harmoniously with state governments.

It becomes an urgent necessity to depoliticise the post of Governor amidst arbitrariness, when the office of Governor lacks checks and balances, the will of the people is trampled upon, and civil society is impelled to frame the Juvenalian question: "Who will govern the Governors?"

It is also critical for the smooth operation of a democratic government that the Governor acts prudently, impartially, and efficiently while exercising his discretion and personal judgement. The Governor's function is central to a constitutional democracy's success. He must abstain from any political ideology. It is necessary to preserve the virtue of impartiality.

Sources

1. Supreme Court Observer, judgement summary, State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (8 April 2025)
2. Supreme Court Observer, judgement summary, Governor and President's powers, Special Reference advisory opinion (20 November 2025)
3. Wikipedia, State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu
4. Wikipedia, In re: Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India

Key takeaways

• The Governor acts as a constitutional bridge between the Union and state governments, serving as the state's constitutional head while also functioning as an agent of the central government.
• The Constitution provides no specific qualifications for Governors, leaving appointments to the Union executive's discretion, and the President can remove a Governor at any time without providing reasons or an opportunity to be heard.
• Governor appointments have historically been used to further Union interests because the office lacks structural independence from central authority.
• Multiple reform commissions have recommended changing the appointment system to involve the Chief Minister or inter-state council, and restricting removal to resolution by the state legislature rather than presidential pleasure.
• Recent Supreme Court rulings in 2025 addressed Governor inaction on bills: a two-judge bench ruled prolonged, unexplained delay illegal, but a five-judge Constitution Bench later held that courts cannot set rigid deadlines for assent decisions.

Test yourself

Under Article 163, when can the Governor act in his or her discretion?

The Governor can act in his discretion in situations where the Constitution requires it, and this use of discretionary power cannot be challenged in court on grounds that the Governor should or should not have used it.

What did the Punchhi Commission recommend regarding Governor removal?

The Punchhi Commission recommended that the phrase 'during the pleasure of the President' should be deleted from the Constitution, so that a Governor would be removed only by a resolution of the state legislature rather than at the whim of the central government.

What did the five-judge Constitution Bench hold in its November 2025 advisory opinion on Governor assent?

It held that courts cannot set rigid deadlines for a Governor or the President to act on Bills, that there is no such thing as 'deemed assent', and that assent decisions are generally not for courts to second-guess.

Frequently asked questions

What does it mean to say the Governor is an 'agent of the Union'?

The Governor acts as a representative of the central government while also serving as the constitutional head of the state, creating a dual role that can lead to conflicts of interest and politicisation.

Why does the Constitution not specify qualifications for the Governor?

The absence of specific qualifications leaves the selection entirely to the Union executive’s discretion, increasing the risk of appointments based on political considerations rather than merit or suitability.

How can the Union government remove a Governor without giving reasons?

The President, acting on the advice of the Union government, can remove a Governor at any time without providing a reason or granting an opportunity to be heard, as the Governor serves 'at the pleasure' of the Union.

When can the Governor act without the advice of the state Council of Ministers?

The Governor may use discretionary powers in situations where the Constitution explicitly requires independent action, though such use cannot be challenged in court for how or whether it was exercised.