Answer:
The roots of the office of Governor to act as a link between the centre and states are well established in the Government of India Act, 1935. It was continued even after independence so as to ward off any threats of secession by ensuring a strong centre.
Constitutionally, the powers of the office of governor include the following:
♤ Executive: Related to administration, appointment and removals
♤ Legislative: Related to law making i.e. assent to the bills
♤ Discretionary:
o Invitation to form government when no party gets a clear majority
o Reservation of bills for consideration by the President.
o Submitting reports to the President regarding affairs of the state.
However, there have been numerous controversies including the misuse of powers of the Governor. This has led to calls for abolishing the office altogether as:
♤ The office has become home to retired politicians who favour the interests of the central government over the state government and fail to act in a neutral manner.
♤ There are several instances of misuse of discretionary power by the Governors to meddle with elected governments like the misuse of Article 356 to impose President’s rule in the state.
♤ The appointment of the Governor is made unilaterally by the central government without consulting the state government. The appointment process is therefore considered undemocratic.
♤ The circumstances have changed since independence and the fissiparous tendencies have been effectively curbed which calls for review of the need for an office of Governor.
♤ The functions performed by the Governor are largely ceremonial but the expenditure of maintaining the office acts as a burden on the exchequer.
However, there have been many instances where people manning this Constitutional post rose above partisan politics, and performed their role with dignity and without fear or favour. The misuse of powers should not serve as a justification for abolishing the office. There can be various reform measures such as appointing “eminent persons” from other walks of life rather than career politicians and limiting the discretionary powers of the governor by enforcing recommendations of Sarkaria and Punnchi commission. Also issues arising out of partisanship /discretion have been dealt by SC and some committees which provide avenues for reforms:
♤ In the Nabam Rebia judgment (2016), the Supreme Court ruled that the exercise of Governor’s discretion under Article 163 (council of ministers to aid and advice the Governor) is limited and his choice of action should not be arbitrary or fanciful.
♤ The Rajamannar Committee recommended the deletion of Article 356; Sarkaria, Punnchi and Justice V.Chelliah Commission recommended its use in very rare cases.
♤ Also, the Governors report recommending the imposition of President’s rule may
be analysed by the Supreme Court for malafide intention as noted in S.R. Bommai
v. Union of India.
The office of governor continue to remain significant as it ensures the continuance of governance in the State in times of constitutional crisis; his role is often that of a neutral arbiter in disputes settled informally within the various strata of government, and as the conscience keeper of the community. It is still a crucial link of effective communication between the Centre and the States/UT.
.