Governor’s role and discretionary powers : A Constitutional and judicial overview
|
Y Devendro Singh
Contd from previous issue
Kehar Singh v. Union of India (1989) : Discussed the President's clemency powers under Article 72, analogous to the Governor’s powers under Article 161.
SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994): This landmark judgment curtailed the Governor's discretionary powers, particularly in dismissing a state government, ruling the imposition of President’s rule as subject to judicial review and advocating floor tests to determine majority, superseding the Governor's subjective opinion.
Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006): Emphasized that while the Governor has discretion, it must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily, addressing the arbitrary recommendation by the Governor to dissolve the assembly without a floor test, declaring it unconstitutional and affirming respect for democratic processes.
Rajendra Singh Rana & Ors v. Swami Prasad Maurya (2007): Stressed the necessity of a floor test to determine the assembly's majority, rather than relying solely on the Governor’s discretion.
Nabam Rebia Case, 2016 (Arunachal Pradesh Assembly Case): Clarified that the Governor cannot act on personal whims or resolve political questions meant for the assembly floor. It reiterated the Governor’s chiefly facilitative role, with deviations from constitutional propriety being legally contestable.
Shivraj Singh Chouhan v. Speaker of Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly (2020): Examined the Governor's discretionary powers amidst political dynamics and state government functioning, underscoring alignment with constitutional obligations and scrutiny through judicial review to avert arbitrariness.
The State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to Governor of Punjab (2023): Maintained that in a Parliamentary democracy, real power lies with elected representatives, and the Governor operates on the ‘aid and advice’ of the Council of Ministers, except where constitutional discretion is explicitly prescribed.
In conclusion, the role of the Governor in India, as defined by the Constitution, is a balancing act between ceremonial duties and the exercise of both constitutional and discretionary powers. The Governor acts as a vital bridge between the state and central governance, executing duties such as appointing the Chief Minister, sanctioning bills, and exercising judicial pardons.
Although the Governor holds significant ceremonial and executive responsibilities, the execution of these duties must remain in alignment with the constitutional norms and must reflect the democratic values of the nation. The overarching principle is that the Governor must generally act based on the “aid and advice” of the Council of Ministers, stepping into a discretionary role only when explicitly allowed by the Constitution.
The discretionary powers outlined in Article 163 have been subject to extensive judicial interpretation to safeguard against their misuse. The Supreme Court has underscored that such powers are inherently limited and should be exercised judiciously, with their actions being open to judicial review.
Landmark rulings mentioned above, including Shamsher Singh & Anr v. State of Punjab, SR Bommai v. Union of India, Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India, and State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to Governor of Punjab emphasized the importance of maintaining constitutional propriety and preventing any arbitrary exercise of power by the Governor. The judiciary has consistently maintained that the Governor must refrain from acting on personal discretion in political matters, instead upholding democratic norms through legislative mechanisms like floor tests to determine majority status in assemblies.
Ultimately, the judicial directives have established a framework ensuring that the Governor’s actions support constitutional democracy, respect the authority of elected representatives, and avoid any arbitrariness or deviation from democratic practices. These principles safeguard the spirit of democracy, encouraging a constitutional balance in the Governor’s role as a facilitator rather than an independent authority, there- by strengthening the fundamental tenets of democratic governance in India.
The writer is Joint Director, Manipur Legislative Assembly
Contd from previous issue
Kehar Singh v. Union of India (1989) : Discussed the President's clemency powers under Article 72, analogous to the Governor’s powers under Article 161.
SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994): This landmark judgment curtailed the Governor's discretionary powers, particularly in dismissing a state government, ruling the imposition of President’s rule as subject to judicial review and advocating floor tests to determine majority, superseding the Governor's subjective opinion.
Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006): Emphasized that while the Governor has discretion, it must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily, addressing the arbitrary recommendation by the Governor to dissolve the assembly without a floor test, declaring it unconstitutional and affirming respect for democratic processes.
Rajendra Singh Rana & Ors v. Swami Prasad Maurya (2007): Stressed the necessity of a floor test to determine the assembly's majority, rather than relying solely on the Governor’s discretion.
Nabam Rebia Case, 2016 (Arunachal Pradesh Assembly Case): Clarified that the Governor cannot act on personal whims or resolve political questions meant for the assembly floor. It reiterated the Governor’s chiefly facilitative role, with deviations from constitutional propriety being legally contestable.
Shivraj Singh Chouhan v. Speaker of Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly (2020): Examined the Governor's discretionary powers amidst political dynamics and state government functioning, underscoring alignment with constitutional obligations and scrutiny through judicial review to avert arbitrariness.
The State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to Governor of Punjab (2023): Maintained that in a Parliamentary democracy, real power lies with elected representatives, and the Governor operates on the ‘aid and advice’ of the Council of Ministers, except where constitutional discretion is explicitly prescribed.
In conclusion, the role of the Governor in India, as defined by the Constitution, is a balancing act between ceremonial duties and the exercise of both constitutional and discretionary powers. The Governor acts as a vital bridge between the state and central governance, executing duties such as appointing the Chief Minister, sanctioning bills, and exercising judicial pardons.
Although the Governor holds significant ceremonial and executive responsibilities, the execution of these duties must remain in alignment with the constitutional norms and must reflect the democratic values of the nation. The overarching principle is that the Governor must generally act based on the “aid and advice” of the Council of Ministers, stepping into a discretionary role only when explicitly allowed by the Constitution.
The discretionary powers outlined in Article 163 have been subject to extensive judicial interpretation to safeguard against their misuse. The Supreme Court has underscored that such powers are inherently limited and should be exercised judiciously, with their actions being open to judicial review.
Landmark rulings mentioned above, including Shamsher Singh & Anr v. State of Punjab, SR Bommai v. Union of India, Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India, and State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to Governor of Punjab emphasized the importance of maintaining constitutional propriety and preventing any arbitrary exercise of power by the Governor. The judiciary has consistently maintained that the Governor must refrain from acting on personal discretion in political matters, instead upholding democratic norms through legislative mechanisms like floor tests to determine majority status in assemblies.
Ultimately, the judicial directives have established a framework ensuring that the Governor’s actions support constitutional democracy, respect the authority of elected representatives, and avoid any arbitrariness or deviation from democratic practices. These principles safeguard the spirit of democracy, encouraging a constitutional balance in the Governor’s role as a facilitator rather than an independent authority, there- by strengthening the fundamental tenets of democratic governance in India.
The writer is Joint Director, Manipur Legislative Assembly