The Supreme Court on November 10 has said that “the Governor, as an unelected head of the state, is entrusted with certain constitutional powers and this power cannot be used to thwart the normal course of lawmaking by the state legislatures.” The top court passed its judgement on the plea of the AAP government in Punjab which alleged the governor was not granting his assent to four bills which were passed by the Assembly. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud said that the loggerheads happening between the Governor and the elected government is a matter of “serious concern.”
The latest Supreme Court’s judgement on the Governor’s powers is a stern rebuke to not only the Punjab Governor but to all governors that misuse their powers. Since 2019, most opposition-ruled states, namely, Kerala, West Bengal, Punjab, Telangana, Jharkhand and Tamil Nadu have had problems with respective Governors, who sought to display overbearing attitudes using their discretionary powers under the Constitution. Some of these governments have begun to knock on the doors of the judiciary, seeking judicial remedies to ensure that Governors do not interfere with governance and law making in their states.
There have been many instances where Governors have overstepped their powers and taken decisions that are perceived to be beyond their purview. This has led to accusations of violation of the federal structure and infringement of the powers of the state government. In several cases, politicians and former bureaucrats identifying with a particular political ideology have been appointed as the Governors by the Governments. This goes against the constitutionally mandated neutral seat and has resulted in bias.
The role of Governor is indispensable for the successful working of constitutional democracy. He must refrain from aligning himself to any political ideology. The virtue of impartiality must be withheld to ensure a free and fair election in a democracy. The people will lose faith in the office of Governor as in most cases he acts like an agent of the union government and not as an independent office. This would help to ensure that the Governor acts in a more impartial manner. The discretionary power of the governor also needs to be defined.
The Supreme Court has issued several judgements regarding conflicts between the Governor and the state government. These judgements have established the powers and responsibilities of the Governor, as well as the limits of those powers. The Supreme Court has established that the Governor’s powers are not absolute and are subject to judicial review and that the Governor must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers in most circumstances. The Punchhi Commission of 2007 in one of its key recommendations has suggested that the Governor should be seen as a representative of the President, rather than as a representative of the Centre.
