Answer

The Governor’s discretionary powers, enshrined in Articles 163 and 200 of the Indian Constitution, were intended as constitutional safeguards. However, recent instances suggest these powers are increasingly utilized for political leverage, raising concerns about their impact on federal balance and democratic legitimacy.

Discretionary Powers: Constitutional Necessity or Political Leverage

• Appointment of Chief Ministers (Article 164): Governors have discretion in appointing Chief Ministers, especially in hung assemblies.
  Example: In 2018, the Karnataka Governor invited the BJP despite the Congress-JD(S) alliance having a majority, raising concerns of political bias.
• Delay in Assent to Bills (Article 200): Governors may delay or withhold assent to state legislation, obstructing governance.
  Example: The Tamil Nadu Governor delayed assent to 10 bills, prompting the Supreme Court (2024) to question the delay’s constitutionality.
• Reservation of Bills for President (Article 200): Governors may reserve bills for Presidential consideration, often stalling state policy.
  Example: In Karnataka, the Governor reserved two cooperative society bills, citing constitutional doubts and bypassing the state legislature.
• Dismissal of State Governments (Article 356 via Article 174): Governors can recommend President’s Rule, sometimes controversially.
  Example: In 1984, the Andhra Pradesh Governor dismissed the state government, triggering accusations of partisan overreach.
• Interference in Administration (Article 163): Though bound by aid and advice, some Governors interfere in executive matters.
  Example: In West Bengal, the Governor’s direct criticism of state policies led to frequent confrontations with the Chief Minister.
• Pardon Powers (Article 161): Governors can grant pardons and reprieves, raising debates on transparency.
  Example: Delay by the Tamil Nadu Governor in releasing Rajiv Gandhi case convicts led to legal scrutiny and Supreme Court intervention (2023).
• Role in University Affairs : Governors, as Chancellors, influence university appointments, causing executive-legislative friction.
  Example: In Kerala, disputes over the Governor’s role in university appointments led to state-wide protests and governance concerns

Consequences of Supreme Court Judgments on Federal Balance and Democratic Legitimacy

• Reaffirmation of Constitutional Boundaries: The Supreme Court has emphasized that Governors must act within constitutional limits.
  Example: In the State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025), the Court clarified that discretionary powers are limited to specific situations.
• Promotion of Cooperative Federalism: Judgments have underscored the importance of harmonious Centre-State relations.
  Example: The Court’s observations in recent cases advocate for mutual respect between state governments and Governors.
• Strengthening Legislative Processes: The judiciary has acted to prevent undue delays in legislative assent.
  Example: The Supreme Court criticized the Tamil Nadu Governor’s delay in assenting to bills, reinforcing timely legislative processes.
• Limiting Arbitrary Use of Powers: Judicial scrutiny has curtailed arbitrary use of discretionary powers.
  Example: In the S.R. Bommai case (1994), the Court set precedents to prevent misuse of Article 356 for political gains.
• Ensuring Accountability: The judiciary has held Governors accountable for their actions.
  Example: Courts have questioned Governors’ decisions that appear to undermine elected state governments.
• Clarification of Roles: Judgments have delineated the roles of Governors and state governments.
  Example: The Court has reiterated that Governors are constitutional heads, not parallel power centers.
• Preservation of Democratic Ethos: Judicial interventions have aimed to uphold democratic principles.

While the Governor’s discretionary powers are constitutionally sanctioned, their misuse for political ends undermines federalism and democratic legitimacy. Judicial interventions have sought to reassert constitutional boundaries, emphasizing the need for accountability and cooperative governance to uphold India’s democratic ethos.

DOWNLOAD PDF