CHAPTER III

THE ROLE OF GOVERNOR UNDER THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
a) Introduction:

Governor is a dynamic institution. Though a near complete picture has been

portrayed in the constitution of the Indian Republic, this, however, needs to b
clarified and or modified in the lights of the debate in the constituent assembly and
knew emerging situation. Addressing the Governor’s conference in 1990, the then
President Venkatraman stated that Governor is not merely a ceremonial functionary
as the political fluidity in some states has put Governor’s to great strain and called for
the exercise of their judgment with extreme care and objectivity in the formation of
Governments. To him a Governor is a sagacious and vital link between centre and
state in federal unity.1

Going a step further President Dr. S.D. Sharma took initiative to constitute a
committee of Governors on the welfare of minorities. This was an attempt to break a
new ground in the sense that it seeks to involve the heads of States in the area where
no specific or special part is envisaged for them in the constitution.2 The President
further advised the Governor to go by rule book, rise above party loyalties and act as
a representative of the whole state.

In 1946 Sir Frederick Burrows, the Governor of Bengal, asked Mahatma

Gandhi that with a popular government in power, what was a governor expected to
do. The Mahatma gave a one word reply, “Nothing.” This advice given to a British
Governor who wielded considerable executive authority, underscored the fact that
even in those days, a Governor was not expected to interfere with the functioning of
a popular government. After Independence, there was a strong opinion against
continuing the institution of Governor. Biswanath Das a former Chief Minister of
Orissa during the debate in the Constituent Assembly stated, “Now we are going to
have democracy from toe to neck and autocracy at the head.”

1
V.S. Singh, Madhya Pradesh Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 7, no. 1, 2002, p. 51.
2
Ibid, p. 51.

59
 While accepting to retain the office of Governor, the Constituent Assembly
ensured that that did not happen. The Constitution clearly defines the role of the
Governor. On all matters, he shall act on the advice of the council of ministers
except when selecting a Chief Minister. He can recommend President’s rule in
special circumstances and in that event, temporarily govern the State. There is even
now a section of opinion in the country which feels that Governor is an unnecessary
relic of the Raj and we could do without this institution. I feel that besides his role
defined in the Constitution, a Governor has other useful roles. He is a State symbol
above the cut and thrust of politics.3

According to Article 155 every Governor is appointed by the President; and

since according to Article 74, there is a council of ministers, headed by the Prime
Minister to aid and advice the President and the advise is binding, there is reason to
believe that a Governor is an agent of the President/ Central Government.

Article 156 lays down that a Governor shall hold office during the pleasure of
the President. It means that pleasure can be with withdrawn even before the term of 5
year. The Governor can also be transferred from one state to another. This strengthens
the argument that the Governor is an agent of President/ Central Government.

The administration of scheduled areas is a difficult task due to so economic

conditions of these areas the constituent assembly prefer to give special treatment for
this and assigned the task to Governors. A Governor has not only been given the
direct responsibility of administration of tribal areas and he is required to send an
annual report to the President about the administration of scheduled areas.

Article 356 lays down that on the report of the Governor or being otherwise
satisfied that the constitutional machinery has failed, the President can assume all
powers of State and transfer the Legislative power to the Parliament.

Today the situation is that different political parties are in power in different
States. In other words, the situation obtaining between 1952 and 1967, when one
party controlled both the Parliament and State Legislatures no longer continues. In
such a situation and because the Governor owes his appointment and his continuation
in the office to the Union Council of Ministers, in matters where the Central

3
Seminar on "Role of Governors" Attended by Shri L.K. Advani, Retired General Sinha and Other
Governors at India Habitat Centre Auditorium(Friday, 23 July 2010)

60
Government and the State Government do not see eye to eye, there is the
apprehension that he is likely to act in accordance with the instructions, if any,
received from the Union Council of Ministers rather than act on the advice of his
Council of Ministers. Indeed, the Governors today are being pejoratively called the
‘agents of the Centre’. It is true that the Central Government is not expected to give
any instructions which compromise the status and position of the Governor nor is it
expected to remove him for not implementing the instructions given by it, the
experience for the last several years belies this hope. As, Seervai, has pointed out in
his commentary: “As the President acts on the advice of his Ministry, it may be
contended that if the Governor takes action contrary to the policy of the Union
Ministry, he would risk being removed from his post as Governor and therefore he is
likely to follow the advice of the Union Ministry. It is submitted that a responsible
Union Ministry would not advise, and would not be justified in advising, the removal
of a Governor because, in the honest discharge of his duty, the Governor takes action
which does not fall in line with the policy of the Union Ministry. The removal of the
Governor under such circumstances would otherwise mean that the Union executive
would effectively control the State executive, which is opposed to the basic scheme
of our federal Constitution. Article 156(1) was designed to secure that if the Governor
was pursuing policies which were detrimental to the State or to India, the President
would remove the Governor from his office and appoint another Governor. This
power takes the place of an impeachment which clearly is a power to be exercised in
rare and exceptional circumstances”.4

The role of Governors has come in for severe criticism – sometimes,

bordering on condemnation – in the context of reports they submit under and within
the meaning of Article 356. Many a Governor has not covered himself with glory in
that behalf. Notwithstanding the recommendations guiding the discharge of their
functions in the

Sarkaria Commission Report (to which we shall presently refer) and the
decisions of the Conference of Governors, many Governors continue to behave in a
manner not consistent with true spirit of the Constitution. This would be evident
from the decision of the Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai V. Union of India (AIR
1994 SC 1918). A few observations from the said judgment may be apposite. In his

4
page 3103, para 14, in Vol. III; Constitutional Law of India; Fourth Edition.

61
judgment delivered for himself and Kuldip Singh J., Sawant J. commented thus upon
the conduct of the then Governor of Karnataka:

“It was improper on the part of the Governor to have arrogated to himself the
task of holding, firstly, that the earlier 19 letters were genuine and was written by the
said legislators of their free will and volition. He had not even cared to interview the
said legislators but had merely got the authenticity of the signatures verified through
the legislature secretariat…. We are of the view that this is a case where all canons of
propriety were thrown to winds and the undue haste made by the Governor in inviting
the President to issue the proclamation under Article 356(1) smacked of mala fides….
The action of the Governor was more objectionable since as a high constitutional
functionary, he was expected to conduct himself more fairly, cautiously and
circumspectly. Indeed it appears that the Governor was in a hurry to dismiss the
Ministry and dissolve the Assembly”5

While dealing with the conduct of then Governor of Meghalaya, the learned
judge made similar observations and observed finally:

“The unflattering episode shows in unmistakable terms the Governor’s

unnecessary anxiety to dismiss the Ministry and dissolve the Assembly and also his
failure as a constitutional functionary to realize the binding, legal consequences of
and give effect to the orders of the court”.

The Governor plays a very important role under the Constitution of India. He
is a part of the Stale legislature. No bill becomes Act without the assent of the
Governor. He also appoints the Chief Minister and Ministers or Council of
Ministers on the advice of the Chief Minister. He is also empowered by the
Constitution to dismiss the Chief Minister and Ministers of the State Cabinet.

When there is abnormal condition in the State Ministry and the Ministry
does not function according to provisions of the Constitution he can make a report
to the President and recommend President's rule. In actual practice which we call
President's rule, in fact, is the Governors rule because all functions of the State
machinery during President's rule are exercised by the Governor under the
directions of the President.

5
Ibid. para 76.

62
b) The role of Governor in appointment of Chief Minister and Other
Ministers:-

i) Council of Ministers in State Cabinet vis-a-vis Governor:

On lines similar to the Centre, each State has a Council of Ministers,

with the Chief Minister at its head. The provision regarding the Council of Ministers
is mandatory and the Governor cannot dispense with this body at any time Article
163 (1). .This proposition has now been reiterated by the Supreme Court
which has held that “the Council of Ministers continues to stay in office even
when the Legislature is dissolved by the Governor”6

The Function of the Council of Ministers is “to aid and advise the Governor
in the exercise of his functions except in so far as he is by or under this Constitution
required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion Article
163(1). The phrase "by or under” the Constitution means that the need to exercise
discretionary power may arise from any express provision of the Constitution or by
necessary implication.7

It has been judicially held that the Council of Ministers comes into
existence to aid and advise the Governor as envisaged by Article 163(1) as soon as,
the Chief Minister is appointed and sworn in by the Governor. More Ministers can
be appointed in course of time. But, till then, the Chief Minister alone acts as
the Council of Ministers to aid maximum number of Ministers as members
of the Council of Ministers. Accordingly, there is nothing in the Constitution
to prevent the Chief Ministers from adding and advising the Governor all by
himself pending appointment of other Ministers and allocation of business
among then. "The formation of the Council of Minister is complete with the
swearing of the Chief Minister."8

ii) Qualification for appointment of Minister Chief Minister:

Ordinarily, a Minister should be a member of the State Legislature. A

basic feature of the parliamentary system of government is that all Ministers
ought to be members of a House of State Legislature. This ensures accountability

6
K.N. Rajgopal v. M. Karunanidhi, AIR 1971 SC 1551 (1972) 4 SCC 733.
7
Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab. AIR 1974 SC 2192: (1974) 2 SCC 821.
8
Dattaji Chiranda S. v. Slate of Gujarat, AIR 1990 Guj. 48,57.

63
of the Council of Ministers to the Legislature. However, a non-member may also be
appointed as a Minister, but he would cease to be a Minister if he does not
become a member of the State Legislature within six months Article 164 (4).

Under Article 177, a Minister has the right to speak in, and
participate in the proceedings of a House of the State Legislature. This means that
a Minister, even though not a member of a House can participate in its proceedings
but cannot vote.

Under this provision, a person who is not a member of any House may even
be appointed as the Chief Minister9 as the term 'Minister' in Article 164 (4) covers
the "Chief Minister” as well. Therefore, there have been cases when non-
members have been appointed as Chief Ministers. For example, Kamraj Nadar was
appointed as the Chief Minister of Madras in 1954 although he was not a member
of the State Legislature.

iii) Judicial Articulation regarding the Scope of Article 164 (4):

A few judicial pronouncements on the scope of Article l64(4) may be taken

note of here:

Shri T.N.Singh who was not a member of either. House of the State
legislature was appointed the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. The High Court
rejected the challenge to his appointment in view of Article 164(4) of the
Constitution and the Supreme Court upheld the High Court. A non-member can be
appointed as Chief Minister for a period of six months.10

A question of crucial significance has been considered by the Supreme

Court in S.R. Chaudhari v. State of Punjab.11 Shri Tej Prakash Singh was appointed
as a Minister in the State of Punjab on the advice of Chief Minister, Sardar Harcharan
Singh Brar, on 9- 9-1995. At the time of his appointment as a Minister, he was not a
member of the State Legislature. As he failed to get elected to the State
Legislature, he resigned from the Council of Ministers after 6 months on 8-3-
1996. This was in accordance with Article 164(4). During the term of the same
Legislature, there was a change in the office of the Chief Minister. The new Chief

9
For enticism of this practice, see, 13 JILI 376 (1971).
10
Harsharan Verma v. Tribhuvan Narain Singh, AIR 1971 SC 1331: (1971) 1 SCC 616. The court reiterated
this ruling in Harsharan Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1985 SC 282:2SCC 48.
11
AIR 2001 SC2707: (2001)SCC 126.

64
Minister, again appointed Tej Prakash Singh as a Minister on 23-11-1996. He was
not a member of the Legislature at that time. A petition was filed for a writ of quo
warranto against the Minister. The High Court quashed the Minister's appointment.
The Supreme Court stated that Arts. 164 (1) and 164(4) should be so construed as to
"further the principles of a representative and responsible Government." The Court
refused to interpret Article 164 in a literal manner on the 'plain language of the
Article’. Instead the Court argued for a "purposive interpretation of the provision.”12

Referring to Article 164, the Court observed that its scheme clearly suggests
that ideally, every Minister must be a member of the Legislature at the time of his
appointment. In an exceptional case, a non-member may remain a Minister for six
months. Such a person must get elected to the House during the period of six
months. If he fails to do so, he must cease to be a Minister. He cannot be re-
appointed thereafter during the life time of the same Legislature by the same or
even a different Chief Minister. The Court has observed.

The "privilege" of continuing as a Minister for six months without being an

elected member is only a one time slot for the individual concerned during the term
to get himself elected to Legislative Assembly. It exhausts itself if the individual is
unable to get himself elected within the period of grace of six consecutive months.
It is not permissible for different Chief Ministers to appoint the same
individual as a change of a Chief Minister, during the term of same Assembly
would, therefore, be of no consequence so far as the individual concerned.13

To appoint a person repeatedly as a Minister while he is not a member of the

Legislature would amount to subversion of the constitutional and democratic
process. The Court further observed criticizing the appointment of a non-member
repeatedly as a Minister.14

"By permitting a non-legislator Minister to be re-appointed without getting

elected within the period prescribed by Article 164(4), would amount to ignoring
the Electorate in having its say as to who should represent it- a position which is
wholly unacceptable. The seductive temptation to cling to office regardless of
constitutional restraint must be totally eschewed. Will of the people cannot be

12
Ibid at 2717.
13
Ibid, at 2718.
14
Ibid at 2719.

65
permitted to be subordinated to political expediency of the Prime Minister or the
Chief Minister as the case maybe, to have in his cabinet a non-legislator as a
Minister for an indefinite period by repeated reappointments without the individual
seeking popular mandate of the electorate." Accordingly, the Supreme Court has
expressed its “considered option” that “It would be subverting the
Constitution to permit an individual, who is not a member of the
Legislature, to be appointed a Minister repeatedly for a term of "six
consecutive months", without getting him elected in the meanwhile. The
practice would be clearly derogatory to the constitutional scheme, improper,
undemocratic and invalid."

The Supreme Court has made another momentous pronouncement in

B.R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu 15 in relation to Article 164(4). The
matter arose in the following factual context. The nomination paper of

Jayalalitha for election to the State Legislative Assembly was

rejected. She had appealed to the High Court against her conviction; the
High Court suspended her sentence but not her conviction pending
decision on her appeal. Accordingly, she was disqualified to contest an
election to the house. As a result of the election, her party (AIDMK) won by
a big majority and elected her as the leader. The Governor of Tamil Nadu
appointed her as the Chief Minister under Art 164 (4) as she was not a member
of the State Legislature at his time. Her appointment as the CM was
challenged and the Supreme Court declared the same as null and void.

The crucial question was whether a person who is disqualified to be a

member of the State Legislature could be appointed as a Minister or the
Chief Minister under Article 164 (4). The Supreme Court argued in the
negative. The court has argued that it not a member of the Legislature must
seek election to the Legislature and secure a seat therein, within six months of
his appointment. If he fails to do so, he ceases to be a Minister, lt, therefore,
follows from this that a person appointed as a Minister should be one who can
stand for election to the Legislature and satisfy the requirement of Article 164 (4).
This means that he should be one who satisfies the qualification for membership of
the State Legislature Article 173 and is not disqualified form seeking that
15
JT 2001 (8) SC 40: (2001)7 SCC 231.

66
membership by reason of any provision in Article 191 on the date of his
appointment as a Minister.

The idea underlying Article 164(4) is that due to political exigencies , or to

avail the services of an expert in some field, a person may have to be appointed
as a Minister without his being a member of the State Legislature at the time of
his appointment. He has 6 months for this purpose. This means that he should be a
person who, when he is appointed, is not debarred from being a member of the
Legislature. This means that he should he qualified to stand for the election to the
Legislature and is not disqualified to do so. Art 164 (4) is not intended for the
induction into the Council of Ministers of someone who is intelligible to stand for
election to the State Legislature.

The Court has stated that it would be "unreasonable and anomalous to

conclude that a minister who is a member of the Legislature is required to meet the
constitutional standards of qualification and disqualification but that a Minister who
is not a member of the Legislature need not, “Logically the standards expected of a
Minister who is not a member should be the same as, if not greater than, those
required of a member."

If the Governor appoints a disqualified person to a constitutional

office, the discretion of the Governor may not be challengeable because of
Article 361, but that does not confer any immunity on the appointee himself. The
qualification of the appointee to hold the office can be challenged in proceedings
for quo warranto. If the appointment is contrary to any constitutional provision, it
can be quashed by the Court.

The Supreme Court rejected the argument that Jayalalitha had people's
mandate to become the Chief Minister of the Slate as is evidenced by her party
having won at the election. The Court's reply to this argument is:

"The Constitution prevails over the will of the people as expressed through
the majority party. The will of the people as expressed through the majority
party prevails only if it is in accord with the Constitution."16

16
JT 2001 (8) SCC at 66.

67
c) Appointment of the Chief Minister by the Governor and related
controversies and issues:-

The Chief Minister is appointed by the Governor Article164. As a matter of

a well- established convention the leader of the majority-party in the Lower House
should be appointed as the Chief Minister. In normal circumstances the Governor has
no doubt as to who is the leader of the majority party in proper person, i.e., leader of
the majority party in the House. There is no dearth of examples in India. Infact this
had happened in many States after the Third General Election, when there was no
recognized leader in the House of either parties claiming majority without having
such majority. In such circumstances the Governor may have to exercise his
discretion in selecting the Chief Minister.

Unfortunately, in exercise of their discretion Governors have not followed

any uniform practice. In some States the Governors had invited the leader of a
United Front (Rajasthan, election or after the election. On the other hand, in some
Stales the Governors had given preference to the leader of a United Front over the
leader of the single largest. party (in the Centre in 1979, Punjab in 1967, Bihar in
1968, West Bengal in 1970, Maharashtra in 1978).

It is generally recognized that the Governor's discretion in appointing the Chief

Minister should be guided on the following principles: first, in the normal
circumstances he should invite the leader of majority party, second, he should invite the
leader of the alliance or coalition or front it was formed before the election and
returned with majority; third, he should invite the leader of the single largest party;
fourth, he should invite the leader of the front formed after elections. If these
guidelines are followed, it is submitted that the exercise of Governor's discretion would
be free from controversy.

After the Fourth General Election in 1967 the exercise of the Governor's
discretion to appoint a Chief Minister became a matter of great controversy.

In 1951 Mr. Sri Prakash, the Governor of Madras, had invited the leader of the
single largest party to form the Government although the Congress had a strength of 155
only in a House of 375 members. He rejected the claim of T. Prakasam who had formed a
new party under his leadership having strength of 167 members. Rejecting his claim,
Governor said, “I am not going to recognize the combination of groups. I am going to

68
absolute majority part of biggest party". In 1967, in Rajasthan no party could get
Majority in the Legislature. The Congress was single largest party in the Assembly.
Against this, there was a coalition of non-congress parties, who claimed a majority
support in the House.

Both the groups claimed the support of the independents and they requested the
Governor to invite their leaders to form the Government. The members of the coalition
group even paraded before the Governor and the President to prove their majority.
But the Governor excluded the independents for the purpose of ascertaining the
majority and invited the leader of the largest single party to form the Government.
The coalition criticized the action of the Governor. According to them, action of the
Governor was politically motivated and it was done in order to install the
Congress Ministry. In support of his action the Governor cited the precedent of
Madras.

But this precedent was not followed uniformly by the Governors. In 1965,
though the Communist party was the largest single party in Kerala, yet it was not
invited to form the Government.

In 1967, in Punjab after the fall of the United Front Government headed by
Gurnam Singh, the Governor first invited the leader of U.F. to form the ministry. In
Bihar in 1968 after the fall of the U.F. ministry headed by M.P. Sinha the Governor
first invited leader of Congress, and on his refusal B.P. Mandal (Soshit Dal) to form
Government, though the Dal had only 38 members in a House of 319. In 1978, in
Maharashtra the Governor invited leader of the Congress- Congress (I) coalition to
form the government and rejected the claim of the Janta Party which was the largest
single party in the House. Again after the fall of the Congress coalition in
Maharashtra the Governor invited Mr. Sharad Pawar of Progressive Democratic
Front (a breakaway group from Congress (I) to form the government ignoring the
largest single party's claim (Janta Party.) to form the government.

In 1982, in Haryana, in 90-member House the Congress (I) had 35 members

and the Lok Dal, BJP alliance had 36 members. The Governor Mr. G.D. Tappasse
first invited Mr. Devi Lal, the leader of Lok Dal-B.J.P. alliance, to parade his
supporters. But suddenly he changed his mind and invited Mr. Bhajan Lal the leader
of the single largest party to form the Government. The Governor justified his

69
decision to invite Mr. Bhajan Lal to form the new ministry on the ground that the
Congress was the single largest party in the assembly and in support of his action.
He quoted past precedents (i.e. Madras in 1952 and Rajasthan 1967). He gave one
month's time to Mr. Bhajan Lal to prove his majority in the Assembly. Although his
invitation to the leader of the single largest party could not be challenged because it
was generally recognized that if no party had secured majority in the House the
leader of the single largest patty should be invited to form the ministry. But the
manner in which he acted in first inviting the alliance leader and then suddenly
changing his own decision and inviting Mr. Bhajan Lal created a lot of
controversy. Had he initially invited Mr. Bhajan Lal he could have saved him from
the charge of acting at the dictates of ruling party in the Centre. Even on the ground
of two past precedents his action could not be justified because that precedent was not
followed uniformly. In 1979, although Janta Party was the single patty in the Centre
but its leader was not invited to form government. In 1982, in Kerala, Mr.
Karunakaran, the leader of the Untied Democratic Front, was invited to form the
ministry which survived due to the casting vote of the Speaker for 60 days only.

In the matter of appointment of the Chief Minister, the Governor is not

required to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers. However, the over-all
affective limitation on his discretion is that he is to appoint a person as Chief
Minister who will be able to enjoy a majority support in the Assembly. If the
Ministry is not able to command a majority support in the House, it will fall. If a
party enjoys a clear majority in the Assembly, the Governor's task is more or less
mechanical and non-discretionary, as he has to call upon the leader of the majority
party to form the government.

His task, however, becomes difficult, and even controversial, when no party
has clear majority in the Assembly, and when loyalties of the legislators undergo
frequent changes making the political picture in the State fluid and confused. In
such a situation, the Governor's role may become crucial as it often becomes a
matter of importance as to who is invited first to form the government, for the party
in power could hope to gain accretion to its strength by winning over the loyalties
of some legislators with a flexible conscience. In such a fluid situation, the
Governor has to take a decision, after making such enquiries as he thinks proper, as

70
to the person who the Government.17 For example, the role of the Haryana Governor
in appointing the leader of the Congress (I) as Chief Minister came in for a lot of
criticism. Congress (I) was not the largest group in the Assembly but its leader was
appointed as the Chief Minister; he was later able to attract a Few members from
other parties and thus managed a majority for himself.

At times, while appointing the Chief Minister, the Governor imposes the
restriction that he should seek a vote of confidence from the House concerned. A
question has been raised whether the Governor can do so because the Constitution
does not specifically refer to anything like a vote of confidence. Does the Governor
act beyond his powers while imposing any such condition? The Patna High Court in
Sapra18 has answered the question in the negative. The court has invoked two
constitutional features to support such a condition, viz., first, collective
responsibility of the Council of Ministers to the House and second, discretionary
nature of the Governor's power to appoint to the Chief Minister. The principle of
collective responsibility includes within its ambit the rule that the Council of
Ministers must enjoy majority support in the Legislative Assembly and it
includes both a vote of confidence and a vote of no confidence for or against the
Ministry. Where there is doubt about the Chief Minister enjoying the majority
support in the house, the Governor is entitled to call upon him to prove his majority
in the House. This serves two purposes, viz. (I) it assures the Governor that his
choice of the Chief Minister was right; and (2) it satisfied the electorate that the
Chief Minister enjoys majority in the Assembly. The High Court has observed
that19-

"...the Constitution does not make any reference either to a vote of

confidence or to a vote of no confidence, and it would indeed be preposterous to
suggest that since the Constitution does not refer to these, in a parliamentary form
of Government there can be no vote of confidence or vote of no confidence for or
against the Government with a cabinet system would be defeated if such a
construction is put on the provision of Article 164 of the Constitution..."

17
See, Report of the Governors’ Committee, 14. 28 (1971)
18
Sapra Jayakar Motilal CR. Das v.Union of India, AIR 1999 Pat 221.
19
AIR 1999 Pat, at 228.

71
i) Crux of the report given by Committee of Governors in 1971 regarding
guidelines for guidance of the Governors in the matter of appointing the Chief
Minister:-

On November 26, 1970, the President appointed a Committee of Governors,

to study certain aspects pertaining to the 'Role of Governors'. The Committee
submitted its report in 1971. The crux of the same as follows:

1. Where a single party commands a majority in the Assembly, the

Governor is to call upon its leader to form the government.

2. It is not incumbent on the Governor to invite the leader of the largest party
(not in majority) to form the government. "The ultimate test for the purpose
is not the size of a party but its ability to command a majority in the house.

3. If before the election, some parties combine and produce an agreed

program and the combination gets a majority after the election, the
commonly chosen leader of the combination should be invited to from the
government.

4. If no party is returned in a majority at the election and, thereafter,

two or more parties come together to from the government, the leader of
the combination may be invited to form the government.

5. The leader of a minority party may be invited to form the

government if the Governor is satisfied that the leader will be able to
muster majority support in the House.

6. Ordinarily, an elected of the Legislature should be chosen as the Chief

Minister. A non-member or a nominated member of the Legislature
ought not to be appointed as the Chief Minister except in exceptional
circumstances. In any case, he should become an elected member of the
Legislature as soon as possible.

ii) Recent Controversy in Goa and Bihar vis-a-vis Governor's role in 2005
and related issues:-

A controversy has erupted over Governor Syed Sibtey Razi’s decision

to invite the leader of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, Shibu Soren, to form a
government in Jharkhand. The argument cannot be over democratic principles but

72
only with respect to the Governor's arithmetic. In Jharkhand, the B.J.P is the single
largest party-just like Mr. Lalu Prasad's RJD in Bihar. It claimed a coalition of 36
including six members of the JD (U). But as the figures added up on the evening of
March 1, 2005, the strength of the Congress-led, post-poll alliance was also a clear
36 in an 81-member list of the BJP alliance competed with a 42-member list of the
Congress-led combine.

After going through the various tests such as the 'list’ test, the 'parade' test,
the Governor upheld the Congress' claim. This is very much in his discretion. He
has imposed a confidence vote on the new Government has a strategic advantage.
But the answer now lies on the floor of the Jharkhand Assembly.

Unfortunately, like any other disgruntled political party denied the promise
of power, the BJP has decided to resort to agitation. Taking up the issue with
President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam is nothing but political showmanship. The President
has no rule to play in the appointment of a Chief Minister. Indeed it would be
wrong for him to do so. Nor can the President impose President's rule with out the
advice of the Prime Minister. Typically, the BJP has also decided to disrupt
proceedings in Parliament.

Parliament, too, has no role to play in the appointment of the Chief

Minister. These are all political tactics- and, all the more ungainly for being so.
The only constitutional option before the BIP is to challenge the Governor's action
by defeating the confidence vote sought by Mr. Soren on the floor of the Assembly.

It would be sad and disturbing if Indian democracy went back to the

situation of 40 Years ago when governments at the Centre misused their Governors.
Even now, Governors must put their house in order. The BJP's attempt to draw
political mileage by comparing the Goa case with that of Jharkhand is without
foundation. The Goa decision stands apart and has no bearing on the Jharkhand or
Bihar situations. In the latter cases, the Governor is tinder a constitutional duty to
examine which of the contesting claimants can form a stable government. In
Jharkhand, he has made his decision. The decision has to be tested on the floor of
the Assembly, not in courts of law.

Political parties should refrain from brining constitutional governance to a

halt simply because the Governor's discretion was not exercised in their favour.

73
 Democracy cannot survive if unelected State Governors play games with
post- election scenarios to please the party in power at the Centre that appointed
them to office. The practice was evident in the aftermath of the general elections in
1967, when Governor after Governor used his discretion to choose Chief Ministers.
In 2005, such abuse of power by Governors is once again being called into
question. On February 2, 2005, Goa Governor S.C. Jamir sacked Chief Minister
Manohar Parrikar in doubtful circumstances to peremptorily install the Congress in
power. Now suspicion is being cast on the way Governor are handling post-election
claims by parties to form governments in Jharkhand and Bihar.

Politically, all these manoeuvres are part of a larger canvas. The Congress is
part of a secular front that does not want to see the Bharatiya Janta Party return to
power- either at the Centre or in any of the States. Having lost power at the Centre
in 2004, it is imperative for the BJP to re-capture power in as many States as
possible to build a national image to return to power at the Centre. It is relatively
easy to analyse our present discontents in consequential list terms.

Politically, it is a straight choice between the secular front and the non-
secular BJP alternative. The secular front accuses the BJP and its supporters of
exploiting Communal sentiments to capture power-most recently in Gujarat and
elsewhere in 2002-2003. For those who support the secular front over communal
alternatives, keeping the BJP and its allies out of power represents the triumph of
secularism, which is basic to the Constitution.

However, such a consequentiality approach undermines rather than

fulfils the goals of the Constitution. After 1967, Congress Governors played havoc
with the constitutional enterprise. The worst example was that of Governor
Sampuranand who, in 1967, refused to recognize a United Front post-poll alliance
in Rajasthan and gave preference to the Congress which did not have a clear
majority. After this, few Governors have concerned themselves with constitutional
propriety.

It was thought that mattes might get better after the Supreme Court
judgment in the S.R. Bommai case (1993). It was laid down that the correct
procedure was to test the majority of a government on the floor of the legislature.
But there was no respite from political subterfuge. A disagreement between

74
Governor Motilal Vora and Chief Minister Mulayarn Singh over the date of the
confidence vote led to the latter's dismissal in 1995. In 1996, Governor Romesh
Bhandari refused to allow the BJP, as the largest party, to form a government in
Uttar Pradesh and President's Rule was imposed to further throttle democracy.

iii) Dismissal of Chief Minister vis-a-vis Governor's discretion in doing so,

an appraisal:-

A very controversial question regarding the Governor's discretion is his

power to dismiss the Ministry. As at the Centre, so in a Slate, the Council of
Ministers is collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly and holds
office during the Governor's pleasure.

A non-controversial use of the Governor's power is the dismissal of a

Minister who has lost the confidence of the Chief Minister, or the dismissal of a
Ministry which has demonstrably lost majority support in the Legislative
Assembly, but, instead of respecting the verdict, refuses to vacate the office. Such
a step indicates the normal working of the parliamentary form of government as
well as promotes constitutionalism as it is against democratic norms that a cabinet
which has lost confidence of the majority in the House should continue to remain in
power.

This also Amounts to a breach of Article 164(2) which insists that the
Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly.
How can a Ministry which has lost confidence of the House be said to be
collectively responsible to the House. Here the Governor is not really exercising
any personal discretion for the decision has already been taken by the House and he
is merely implementing the same. Such a use of the Governor's power will be
very rare in practice for a Ministry losing majority support usually resigns
except when the Ministry is defeated in the House on a snap vote.

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that if the Council of Ministers
refuses to vacate the office of Ministers, even after a vote of no confidence has
been passed against it in the Legislative Assembly of the State, it will then be for
the Governor to withdraw the pleasure during which the Council of Ministers hold

75
office.20

When a Ministry enjoying the majority support, however, acts to

thwart the Constitution, or makes a mockery of the democratic and parliamentary
institutions, or infringes a specific constitutional obligation. e.g., it fails to
convene the legislature within six months of the last session, recourse may be
held to the Presidential power under Article 356. It may not be possible for the
Governor to use his own power to dismiss the Ministry in such a situation, for
then he will have to install another Council of Ministers and it may not be
possible for him to do so when the dismissed Ministry had majority in the House.

There is also the knotty problem of options open to a Governor

when the government in office, enjoyed majority support once, but loses that in
between the two sessions of the Legislature. Should the Governor take action to
dismiss the Ministry, or wait till the Assembly meets and votes the Ministry out?

The most dramatic exhibition so far of the Governor's discretionary

power to d i s m i s s t h e M i n i s t r y h a s b e e n i n We s t B e n g a l . A U n i t e d
F r o n t M i n i s t r y , a conglomeration of 14 parties having no common policy or
programme, took office in March 1967 with Ajoy Mukherjee as the Chief Minister. The
parties had fought elections separately, but combined together after the elections with
the dominant purpose of keeping the Congress (which had been in office since
1947) out of power.

On November 2, 1967, a few members defected form the UF, formed a new party
under the leadership of Dr. P.C. Ghosh and informed the Governor that they had
withdrawn support from the Ministry. The Congress Party informed the Governor that it
would extend support to a new Ministry if formed by the leader of the new party. Doubts
about the majority support the UF Ministry were now raised. The Governor impressed on
the Chief Minister the imperative need of calling an early session of the Assembly, but
the Ministry wanted to delay convening the House by six weeks. Consequently, the
Governor dismissed the Ministry and installed another Ministry November 21, 1967,
under Ghosh as the Chief Minister. The Governor based his action on the Ministry losing
majority support in the Assembly. He emphasized that it was constitutionally improper
for a Ministry to continue in office after losing confidence of the majority in the

20
Mahabir Prasad Sharma v. Prafulla Chandra ghose. AIR 1969 Cal. 198.

76
Assembly. In case of doubt on this point, the proper course for the Ministry would have
been to seek a vote of confidence on the floor of the House without delay. The Governor
could not appreciate the reasons advanced by the Chief Minister to delay calling the
Assembly to test the standing of the Ministry. He felt that to deal effectively with the
multifarious problems faced by the State, it was imperative that a Ministry clearly
enjoying majority support should be in office.

Dharm vir, the Government of West Bengal played a sordid, and a highly
prejudicial role. He took a prominent part in arranging and coordinating the
confabulations of insinuating nature between the Congress leaders sent on a toppling
mission by the centre and Ajoy Mukherjee, the Chief Minister of the state. In
planning and executing the highly nefarious and intriguing exercise, intended to
disentangle. Ajoy Mukherjee from his alignment with the united front and thereby
topple the Government, he rather played a prominent role. The worst part of the
invidious exercise was that he allowed the sanctity of the Raj Bhawan to be
desecrated where the intriguing talks were held.21 Falling hand in gloves in a deep
political nexus with the Congress party he had come in determined bid to disentrench
United Front from power. He had served some trump-cards to be played in the event
of the deal, struck with Mukherjee, went awry. Simultaneously, he was holding talks
with Dr. P.C. Ghose, a Minister in the U.F. Ministry to install him as Chief Minister,
if his talks with Mukherjee did not materialize. When, on second thought, Mukherjee
extricated himself from the sordid deal, the dismissal of his Government stands in
testimony of the fact that the Governor had taken an active part in behind the scene
activities and when they did not fructify, in the last resort, he took the desperate step
of dismissing the Government. The dismissal of the government on the simple ground
that the Chief Minister did not agree to the date dictated by the Governor and wanted
the House to be summoned at a later date, which tell only 18 days later, was highly
untenable and betrayed the fact that the Governor wanted a ground, howsoever,
unjustified, and he found out one, which does not find support in the theory and
practice of the parliamentary system. The Governor had instructions from the central
Government and, to take them, he had made air-dash to Delhi, twice. Mr.
Santhanam’s comment bears it out. He says, “it is difficult to believe that the (the

21
Shiviah: The Governor in the Indian Political System; The Journal of Constiutional and Parliamentary
Studies, Vol. V, No. 2, April-June 1971, p.94-96.

77
Governor) had to travel twice to Delhi to make up his own mind.22

The case of Ajit Prasad Jain, the Governor to Kerala, is another instance
where all principles of propriety were recklessly made to fritter away. After Lal
Bahadur Shastri’s tragic death Smt. Indira Gandhi and Morarji Desai came pitted
against each other in a grim struggle for succession. The Governor, relegating all
principles of propriety, jumped into the party political fray and took to canvassing for
Mrs. Gandhi. The Statesman, under the caption, ‘Impropriety Plus’ wrote an editorial
strongly condemning Mr. Jain’s unbecoming conduct, commented “Mr. Jain was
canvassing for a contender of the contest for Prime Ministership while still the
Governor of a state. If it is not deplorable departure from the non-existent but widely
understood code of conduct for the Governor it would be interesting to know what it
is?”23 The editorial further said, “Mr. Jain crowned his grave impropriety with
something indistinguishable from irresponsibility, he took plane to Delhi at a time
when the rice ration for the people of Kerala had come down to four ounces a day,
which is well below the subsistence level. Distress was spreading fast, this was the
moment chosen by Mr. Jain, the chief Executive under the President rule, for political
work in the capital, not even a party political work but partisan political work.” The
least that the Congress party, of which he claims to be a humble worker, should do is
to register its total disapproval of Mr. Jain’s conduct. Others need not be told that, by
his action, Mr. Jain rendered himself disqualified for any responsible post, political or
administrative, during the rest of his career, such as may be. He has forfeited popular
confidence, so will those who condone his reprehensible behaviour.24

In the public controversy, stance that Mr. Jain took was more in defence of his
highly improper conduct than an expression of regret and repentance. He sougth to
justify his conduct taking grounds, which were grotesquely pre-posterous and
smacked of a desperate bid to wriggle out from the vortex of controversy, by trotting
out highly untenable arguments. Defending his conduct he shifted the whole onus of
the blame on the appointing authority - The Central Government. He said, “I could
not say ‘No’ (to his appointment) but I made it clear that well before the general
elections I would be laying down the reins of office to re-enter politics. Thus it would

22
Shiviah: The Governor in the Indian Political System; The Journal of Constiutional and Parliamentary
Studies, Vol. V, No. 2, April-June 1971, p.94-96.
23
The Statesman, January 28, 1966.
24
Ibid.

78
be seen that the politician in me is not dead and when major political decisions are
involved such a person cannot afford to be a mere spectator. If any mistake was
committed, it was at the limit of appointment and what has followed is a corollary.25
One plausible question that can be asked from Mr. Jain is, why did he accept the
appointment when he was conscious of the fact that a ‘politician’ in him was not dead
and he could not resist the temptation of taking part in active politics? Did he not
know that the acceptance of the office needed complete detachment from politics?
Did a man like Mr. Jain, of a long standing in public life, needed to be taught in the
lessons of the code of conduct enjoined with the office? Accepting the office, while
fully conscious of this irritable temptation for politics, is itself an acceptance of the
guilt. The argument invoked by Mr. Jain can hoodwink the gullible people but one
who knows the fact, that one who sits in the neutral office at once forfeits basis
choice of indulging into politics, cannot exonerate him from the misdemeanour. As
far as the central Government is concerned, looking at the Governor as their political
agent, they needed such men like Mr. Jain who could obsequiously yield to their
political expediency and hence had appointed such men who could sell out their
conscience and barter their independence for party loyalty. Both the central
Government and the Governor, instead of setting correct precedents of acting in a
spirit of impeccable and scrupulous rectitude as required under the constitution, set up
bad and ominous precedents which went to cut at the roots of the constitution.

Another instance is of the Lt. Governor of Himachal Pradesh who went all his
way, in extending clandestine support to the Congress party in making its candidate
to win a bye-election which otherwise he was bound to lose.

Another case, in point, comes from Nagaland. The Governor of the state, Mr.
M.M. Thomas in his independent judgement, exercised in strict conformity with the
parliamentary conventions, granted the request of the Chief Minister to dissolve the
Assembly. According to the Governor the Government was in command of a
majority support and hence the advice could not be rejected.26 After the Governor had
dissolved the Assembly under Article 174 (2) (b), the Central Government which
however, did not look his action with equanimity, advised the President to dissolve

25
Ibid.
26
Laski says, “The precedent, indeed, make it clear that no Government which wishes to consult the
electorates will be prevented from doing so if, at the time of its request, it has majority in the House of
Commons” Parliamentary Government in England, p. 410.

79
the state Assembly under Article 356. The President, acting on the advice, dissolved
the Assembly and imposed the President’s rule. The Central Government, taking
umbrage at the Governor for ignoring them and not taking instructions from them
while taking such an important decision, dismissed him. The central Government,
however, to clothe their arbitrary and mala fide action with legitimacy, cooked up
charges against him that he was protecting corrupt officers and promoting
communalism. It cannot convince a man, who does not look at the whole
lackadaisical and oblique exercise with tainted spectacles, that the dismissal of the
Governor should have come soon after he had dissolved the house. What streaks out
most prominently, from the whole sordid exercise, is that the Governor had to not
suffer the ignominy of dismissal only for having gone against the wishes of the
Central Government. The Governor with his feelings deeply hurt said that the
imposition of President’s rule once after the Assembly was dissolved under Article
172 (2) (b) was unprecedented. He also said that while exercising his prerogatives he
was not acting as an agent of the Central Government and the charges trotted out
against the Central Government and the charges trotted out against him were excuses
to have him dismissed. Thus, it comes into broad relief that so long a Governor,
obsequiously, yielded to act according to the convenience of the Central Government
he found favour with them and if any of them, in appreciation of his constitutional
duties, acted independently in correct perspective he was shown the exist gate.

In Madras the installation of largest single party Government, without

commanding a majority support, against the claim of the coalition commanding a
majority support went to go to set up a wrong precedent. In support of the utterly
preposterous action it was said that a coalition coming into existence after the
elections, even if it commanded a majority support, could not be considered for being
set in power. Equally fantastic was the view taken in support of setting up the largest
single party government as in evident from the state of the Governor. He said, “as it is
well known, there are many persons everywhere, not excluding the legislators, who
are willing to join whosoever might be put in power. With a large number of
independents in the Assembly it was quite on the cards that the party in power would
be able to attract a sufficient number of them as well as members of other groups to
give it a majority. It was clear if any party was to be given a chance it must be one

80
that has the largest number of members at its command.”27 From the statement it
comes into broad relief that the Governor depended on prospective defections to
vindicate his prima facie mala fide action. Nobody can support the evil practice of
defection because it promoted political opportunism and also reduced ideological
allegiance an essential postulate of democracy to insignificance yet the Governor
based his vital decision on prospective but dubious defections. The decision was
taken after consulting the Central Government and the Congress High Command. It is
difficult to appreciate that the Governor entered into consultation with the Central
Government and the Leaders of the Congress party, in the matter of appointment of
the Government with which they did not have even remotest concern, and allowed
himself to be dictated by them. From the moves and manoeuvres it comes out quite
prominently that the Governor, dictated by the central Government took a patently
mala fide decision.

In Rajasthan the four non Congress parties Swatantra, Jan Sangh, SSP and
Janta including the Independents, together, claimed a strength of 92 in House of 183.
If the Governor had taken a cue from the principle that is followed in Great Britain
that, “when a government is defeated either in Parliament or at the polls the Queen
should send for the leader of the Opposition” and “before sending for the leader of the
Opposition the Monarch should consult no one. If he takes advice first, it can only be
for the purpose of keeping out the Opposition or its recognized leader. To try to keep
out the Opposition is to take side in party issue. To try to defeat the claim of
recognized lead is to interfere in the internal affairs of the chief Opposition party.”28

The appointment of largest single party Government in Rajasthan sparked of

an acute controversy which compelled the Central Government to circulate a letter to
eminent jurists to elicit their expert opinion on the issues involved.29 In this respect
three questions were formulated which are as follows. First, should a largest single
party be summoned to form the government irrespective of the fact that it does not
command a majority support? Second, if the party in power has failed to secure a
majority at the pools should it be called to form the government? Third, whether non-
counting of Intendments supports, in the determination of strength of different parties,
was proper?

27
Sri Prakash, State Governors in India, p. 35-36.
28
Jennings, Cabinet Government, p. 30-31.
29
Subhas Kashyap, Politics of Power, Appendix 1, p. 630.

81
 Regarding the first question the jurists, in one voice, made a dig at the largest
single party principle. Gajedragadkar was of the opinion that in a situation where no
party has emerged in a majority Governor’s satisfaction, as to which party should be
put in power, is a important factor but putting the largest single party in power and
then asking its leaders to seek a vote of confidence from the House is highly
improper. He said, “under the present conditions in India, the appointment of leader
of such a party as Chief Minister gives him an unfair advantage in securing the
support of Independent members. Such support should be secured by the party in
questions before the leader is invited to be the Chief Minister.”30 He also said the
command of majority support by whosoever is invited to form the Government is the
prerequisite which cannot be relaxed in any circumstances, whatsoever.31 He also
disapproved the idea of inviting the leader of the largest single party if it had been the
ruling party because doing as such would be against the mandate of the people.32
A.K. Sarkar, however, does not support the view that the ruling party, if loses
majority and is reduced to the position of a largest single party, should be thrown out
of reckoning for power. He holds the view that whosoever satisfies the Governor of
being in command of majority support, should be installed in power. He stands
opposed to the view that the largest single party, simply by virtue of emerging as the
largest party, without being supported by majority of the members of the house,
should be put in power because the only test of a party or combination getting in
power is majority support. According to him, “it would be absurd and futile and also
against basic Constitutional concepts. It may be said that the Governor might hope
that the largest single party, after being put in office, might acquire outside support
and thereby command the majority. If it can acquire support after being put in office,
why can it not do before.”33 Mehr Chand Mahajan, stand opposed to appointing a
largest single party government in violation of the mandate of the people. He
observes, “There is a sound constitutional convention that the mandate of the electros
should be respected and if a political party in power has failed to obtain an absolute
majority, the Governor should respect the mandate of the people and call the leader of
the Opposition to form the government, provided the Opposition or a coalition of the

30
Ibid., p. 623.
31
Ibid.
32
Ibid, p. 624.
33
Ibid., p.630.

82
Opposition parties are in such a number as to be able to form a stable government.”34
The opinion of the Jurists is against any discrimination being made between a
coalition coming into existence before the elections and the other coming afterwards.
M.C. Setalvad has observed, “The Governor must, normally, call upon the leader of
the party or group commanding a majority to form a government. It would be
immaterial whether the party is single party, or a coalition, whether formed before or
after the elections.”35 H.M. Seervai also holds a similar opinion. He says, “It may,
however, be that the possible coalition is announced after the election and not before.
Even so, if the coalition commands the majority it must be called to form the
government because it commands a majority.”36

As regards to the third question as to whether the Independents support to

whichever side they extends, should be counted. Gajendragadkar has said, “… It
would be unreasonable not to take into account the fact that after being elected as
Independent members, they choose to join one party or another. If press reports are to
be believed, Mr. Sampoornanand, the then Governor of Rajasthan declined to take
into consideration the fact that some Independent members wanted to join the Non-
Congress groups, That, to my mind, was neither fair nor proper.37

Thus, from the cases cited above the patent fact that streaks out from the
shroud of secrecy is that the ruling party at the centre had exploited the Governor’s
office for petty political ends. From time to time, the role of Governor has made
Indian citizens feel that they are living in a very fragile democratic realm which can
be shaken effortlessly by the Governor. It is a well known fact that the Governors
have played a dictatorial role many a time and transcended all the democratic limits.
Different political parties have misused the role of the Governor at different times for
their partisan interests, thus proving that Indian society has yet to achieve the state of
political modernisation and political culture.38

It is not out of the place to mention here that such of the Governors, who, in
appreciation of their neutrality, refused to fall in nexus with the ruling party at the
centre and acted independently earned the umbrage of the central Government and

34
Ibid.
35
Ibid, p.636.
36
Ibid, p.624.
37
Report of the Committee of Governors, p. 29.
38
Indrajeet Singh, “Role of Governor and Multiparty System. Mainstream, Vol. XLVI, No. 11.

83
were sought to be dispensed with. The case of the Governor of Bihar, Anathswamy
lyyangar, is in point. In the state, after the defection of B.P. Mandal and few of his
followers from the SVD, the Congress party, which was behind the toppling exercise,
came to put pressure on the Governor to dismissive Government which he refused to
do.39 Then they came to insist upon the immediate summoning of the Assembly but
that demand was also turned down.40 The Governor, for the reasons that he did not
yield to the political expediency of the Congress party and projected an impartial
image, was not allowed a second term despite the state Governments
recommendation that he should be given a second term. Not only lyyengar was
refused a second term rather N.N. Kanoongo, a front rank and staunch Congress man
and former Union Minister, was appointed much against the wishes of the state
government.41 Mr. lyyengar on the eve of his retirement said, “Governor must keep
himself behind the scene projecting only the image of a constitutional government”
and “that if we started giving credit to the Governor for their actions, the time is not
far off when there would be a dictatorship at the centre.”42

In reply to the criticism made against him by some Congress leaders about the
way he acted, with his feelings outraged he said, “his only folly was that he did not
act as other Governors were doing. If he had acted as other Governors did, he would
have been allowed to continue in his present post for five to fifteen years.43

Jennings has stated the principle thus, “Where no party obtained a majority at
general elections there are two possibilities only, the formation of a coalition
Government or the formation of a minority Government with Opposition support; for
another dissolution is not practicable.”44 It means that in the first instance, in a
situation as such, the coalition, if it exists, should be set in power. If it does not exist,
a largest single party government can be set up on the condition that it comes to
command a majority support. To set up a largest single party government without it
being in command of a majority support does not square up with the responsible
system. Similarly it is alien to the theory and practice of the parliamentary system to
discriminate between a coalition formed earlier than elections and one coming into

39
Subhas Kashyap, Politics of Power, p.317-18.
40
Ibid, p. 319.
41
Ibid.
42
The Hindu, December 2, 1967, p. 10.
43
Ibid.
44
Jennings, Cabinet Government, p. 30-31

84
existence after it. What is material is the command of a majority support and to adopt
any other norm is destructive of the parliamentary system. Expressing his opinion on
this point A.K. Sarkar said, “If (it largest single party government) can acquire
support after being put in office, why can it not do so before? That answer must be
that once in office if can offer inducements for the acquisition of support which it
could not before. A procedure which opens the door to such states of affairs would be
destructive of healthy and clean democracy. The majority should come into existence
as a result of considerations of policy by which the country is to be governed and not
to be brought about by power politics or even less honourable considerations.”45 It
did not behove the Governor to take a cover of the politics of defection has reached
appalling height and put on the highest niches of Indian democracy, completely
subduing the democratic clan, only because the Governors had sought to encourage it
by setting up largest single party governments.

As to the view held by the Governor that the coalition inspite of commanding
a majority support did not have a claim of being put in power for the simple reason
that it had come into existence only after the elections and not before it, was a
perverse and tainted decision because command of majority support and nothing else,
according to parliamentary principles, could be the basis of setting up the
government. H.M. Seervai an eminent jurist, holds the opinion as follows, “It may,
however, be that the possible coalition is announced after the elections and not
before. Even so if the coalition commands the majority it must be called upon to form
the government because it commands a majority.”46 M.C. Setalyad also holds a
similar opinion. He says, “There have been a number of instances in England where
coalition governments have been formed consisting of two or more groups. The
combinations may exist at the time of election nor may be formed later.”47

The Committee of Governors, with regard to the appointment of government,

has recommended, “The leader of the largest single party in the Legislative Assembly
may be invited to head a government if he is able to satisfy the Governor that, in
combination with other parties or with the support of other members in the Assembly,
he is in a position to command a majority in the Legislature. He has however, no
absolute right as the leader of the largest single party or groups to claim that he

45
Subhas Kashyap, Politics of Power, Appendix 1, p. 630.
46
Ibid., Appendix 1, p. 636.
47
Ibid., p. 628.

85
should be entrusted with the task of forming the government to the exclusion of
others. The relevant test is not the size of the party but its ability to command the
support of the majority in the Legislature.48

The constitutional crisis did not, however, come to an end with this step. To test
whether the new Ministry enjoyed majority support in the house, the Governor convened
the House on the advice of the Chief Minister, but the Speaker adjourned the House
when it met. Ultimately, President's rule had to be imposed in West Bengal.

The Governor's action in dismissing the UF Ministry naturally raised a hue

and cry in the country. Opinions about its constitutional propriety were divided.
The Central House Minister asserted in both Houses of Parliament. On November
30, 1967, that it was within the constitutional competence of the Governor to
dissolve the Council of the Assembly. He also maintained that be Governor had
acted in his discretion and not under any directive from the Centre. This
statement was approved by both Houses of Parliament on December 4, 1967.

From a purely legalistic angle, on February 6,1968, the Calcutta High Court
dismissed a petition for a writ of quo warranto against the new Chief Minister
Ghosh on the ground that under Art 164(I), the Ministers hold office during the
Governor's pleasure and no restriction or condition has been imposed upon the
exercise of the Governors’ pleasure. The Governor has "an absolute, exclusive,
unrestricted and unquestionable discretionary power to dismiss a minister and
appoint a new Council of Ministers". The Court asserted that the "withdrawal of the
pleasure by the Governor discretion by the Governor in withdrawing the pleasure
cannot be called in question in this (writ) proceeding."49

The High Court clarified that the provision in Article 164(2) that the
Ministers shall be a collectively responsible to the Legislature does not fetter the
Governor's pleasure answerable to the assembly and a majority in the Assembly
cant at any time express its want of confidence in the Council of Ministers. But this
is as far as the Assembly can go, it has no power to remove or dismiss a Ministry. If
a Ministry does not vacate office, after the passage of a vote of no confidence
against it by the Assembly, it is then for the Governor to withdraw his pleasure

48
Ibid.
49
Mahabir Prasad Sharma v. P.C. Ghosh, For comment on the case see, 12 JILI 127 (1970). Also, M.P. Singh,
Govenor's Power to Dismiss Ministers or Council of Ministers- An Empirical Study, 13 JILI, 612 (1971).

86
during which the Ministry holds office and the discretion of the Governor is
“absolute unrestricted”.

This legislate position has been confirmed by other High courts that the
Governor has discretionary power to dismiss the Chief Minister. Thus, the Gauhati
High Court has held that under Article 164(1), Ministers hold office during the
pleasure of the Governor. “The exercise of the pleasure has not been fettered by any
condition or construction or restriction.” The Governor as the appointing authority
can withdraw his pleasure and dismiss a Chief Minister. The power to appoint or
dismiss the Chief Minister or the Ministry are exclusive pleasure-cum-discretion of
the Governor. The Constitution lays down no procedure or imposes no fetter as
regards the dismissal of a Chief Minister hold office, is “absolute, unrestricted and
unfettered”.50 Withdrawal of pleasure is entirely in the discretion of the Governor
and the Governor alone. The Assembly can only express its want of confidence in
the ministry; the assembly cannot go further than that; it has no power to remove or
dismiss the ministry. “The power of removal or withdrawal of pleasure is entirely
and exclusively that of the Governor.” This is an area which is prohibited to the
court because of Article 163(2).

In Karopoori Thakur v. Abdul Ghafoor, the Patna High Court refused to issue a
writ against the Chief Minister asking him to resign because he had lost the confidence of
the House. The petition was filed by a few members of the House. The High Court said that
the Council of Ministers was responsible to the whole House and not to a few
members only. Also, there is no rule of law that a Ministry must resign on being defeated
in the House. That is a political matter and the Governor has power to dismiss the
Ministry.51

The Bombay High court has come to a similar conclusion.52 The Governor
of Goa dismissed the incumbent Chief Minister (P) and appointed (W) as the new
Chief Minister. The ex-Chief Minister P challenged the Governor's order through a
writ petition alleging mala fides on the part of the Governor. The High Court
refused to interfere. Dismissing the writ petition as not maintainable. The High Court said
that the matter of dismissing and appointing the Chief Minister is one which the

50
Jogendra Nath Hazarika v. State of Assam, AIR 1982 Gan 25.
51
AIR 1975 Part I.
52
Pratap Singh Raojirao Rane v. Government of Goa,AIR 1990 Bom. 53.

87
Governor discharges in his own sole discretion and without the aid and advice of the
Council of Ministers and is, therefore, not open to judicial review. Governor's discretion is
restricted only by the paramount consideration of command of majority in the House. With
Regard to the action pertaining to the Governor's sole discretion, his immunity under
Article 361 is absolute and beyond the writ jurisdiction of the Court. The Governor is not
answerable to the court even in respect of a charge of male fides in connection with his
official acts. The court pointed out that as the Governor holds office during the
pleasure of the President (Article 156), the President may conceivably go into any
allegation of mala fides. against the Governor. An effective check is that the
Ministry will fall if it fails to command a majority in the State Legislative
Assembly.

This, however, is the legalistic position. In practice, the Governor must keep
certain matters in view while exercising the power, the basic consideration being
that the Governor is to use his powers to promote, not to thwart, responsible
government in the state.

The Bengal episode can hardly be regarded as healthy in a parliamentary

system as it creates an unfortunate precedent that the Governor may dismiss a
Ministry in his discretion. Such episode ought to be avoided in the interest of
smooth working of the Constitution. It is thus necessary to evolve certain
conventions in this respect. The crisis would have been averted had the Ministry
resigned, or called an early session of the House to test its strength as was suggested
by the Governor. Had the Ministry followed any of these courses, the democratic
tradition and values would have been strengthened in the country. Undoubtedly, it
is unconstitutional for a Ministry to remain in office after losing majority support,
and it is under an obligation to remove the could of doubt on its support in the
House by seeking its verdict at the earliest. But the important question still remains
whether the Governor should invoke his discretion in such a situation or bide his
time till the Assembly meets and decides the issue one way or other.

On plausible view may be that it is unconstitutional for the Governor to keep

a Ministry in office about which he feels sure that it no longer enjoys majority
support, and he is under an obligation to dismiss it and put another Ministry in
office instead. The Governors Committee has asserted that "where the Governor is
satisfied, by whatever process or means, that the Ministry no longer enjoys majority

88
support, he should ask the Chief Minister to face the Assembly and prove his
majority within the shortest possible time. If the Chief Minister shirks this primary
responsibility and fails to comply, the Governor would be in duty bound to
initiate steps to form an alternative Ministry. A Chief Minister's refusal to test
his strength on the floor of the Assembly can well be interpreted as prima facie
proof of his no longer enjoying the confidence of the Legislature. If then, an
alternative Ministry can be formed which, in the Governor's view, is able to
command a majority in the Assembly, he must dismiss the Ministry in
power and install the alternative Ministry in office."

But this course of action is full of many hazards and pitfalls and places a
heavy responsibility on the Governor. Whenever a Governor takes any such action,
he is bound to become the centre of a big political controversy. His action may be
characterized as politically motivated. He may make an error of judgment. Not only
the Governor, but the Central Government also is drawn into the vortex of
political controversy. If the newly installed Ministry fails to secure majority
support in the House, the Governor's action would be politically indefensible,
and he may have no other choice but to resign his office. Such an action on the
Governor's part may also encourage defections from one party to another as the
defectors may hope to become ministers in the new Ministry. In the final
analysis, it is the House which is the ultimate arbiter on the question of confidence
of majority support of a Ministry and it is there that the Governor's action has to be
vindicated.

In the Bengal case, when fresh elections were held, the UF won a majority
and again formed the Ministry and this led to the Governor's resignation from
office. A Governor should, therefore, act with extreme care and circumspection in
such a crucial matter. All said and done, the soundest democratic convention
in this regain would appear to be that, but for the extreme and exceptional
situations, the Governor may not use his discretion and wait till the Assembly
gives its verdict. At times, even minority Ministry may remain in office with
the support or sufferance, of some groups in the House. Lastly, there cannot be a
gap of more than six months between the two sessions of the Legislature and,
therefore, the fate of the Ministry in the House cannot remain in suspense for longer
than six months in any case.

89
 The Administrative Reforms Commission has suggested that when a
question arises as to whether the Council of Ministers enjoys majority support in
the Assembly, the Governor may suo motu summon the Assembly to obtain the
verdict if the Chief Minister does not advise him to convene the Assembly. The
Central Government has refused to endorse this suggestion.53

On February 21, 1998, the U.P. Governor dismissed the Kalyan Singh
Government and installed in office another person (Jagdambika Pal) as the Chief
Minister. The Governor's plea was that the Kalyan Singh Ministry had lost its
majority in the Legislative Assembly because of defection of some of its supporters.
There was no vote of no-confidence passed against the Kalyan Singh
Government nor was the Government asked to go to the Assembly to seek a vote
of confidence. The action of the Governor was widely criticized as amounting to
trampling upon democratic conventions and the Governor misusing his position for
partisan ends.

A writ petition was filed in the Allahabad High Court on February 23, 98,
challenging the action of the Governor. Following Bommai. The Allahabad High
Court overturned the Governor's action, restored the Kalyan Singh Government
andleft it open to the Governor to convene a session of the State Legislative
Assembly to prove its majority.54 Then, the newly installed Chief Ministry
approached the Supreme Court. The Court directed that a special session of the
Assembly be summoned which would have the only agenda to have a composite
floor test between the two contending parties in majority in the House. 55 The floor
test was held as directed by the Supreme Court and Kalyan Singh won the day.

T.T. Krishnamachari had told the Constituent Assembly that Governor was
not an agent of the Central Government,56 yet what came to confront us was that he
was no more than an agent of them. The Governor as an agent on the Central
Government would not have wrought much damage if the Governor had not come
vested with unlimited discretionary powers. Some members, who did not have an

53
Report on Centre-State Relationship, 28.
54
The Hindu int’l Ed. Dated February, 28, 98, p. 1.
55
Jagdambika Pal v. Union of India. AIR 1998 SC 998(1999)9 SCC 95
56
T.T.K. said, “I would atonce disclaim all ideas, that we in this House want the future Governors to be
nominated by the President to be in any sense an agent of the central Government. I would like that point to be
made very clear, because such an idea finds no place in the scheme of government we envisage for the future”
CAD, Vol. VIII, p. 460.

90
axe to grind, saw a potential danger in the proposal and, took up cudgels against it
and insisted that his discretionary powers should be catalogued and specifically
defined in unequivocal terms. Looking at the validity of the objection Dr.
Ambedkar assured the agitated members that he would pin-point and specify the
discretionary powers at an opportune time because at that stage he did not exactly
know as to what those powers should be.57 At that stage he only hinted at the nature
of powers Governor would be invested with. He said, “Governors will reserve
certain things in order to give the President the opportunity to see that the rules,
under which the provincial governments are supposed to act according to the
constitution or in subordination to the central Government, are observed.”58 At it
H.V. Kamath asked, “is the general conferment of this power is equal to the specific
occasions when he will exercise his discretion.59

Dr. Ambedkar appreciating the view replied that he was prepared to accept
the amendment if he knew as to what were those Articles where the Governor
should be given discretionary powers. He, however, promised to revise the
provision in the light of the above at the proper time.60 Inspite of it the assurance
was not fulfilled and the provision, in terms it was originally conceived, went on the
statute-book which opened the flood gate of subversion of the constitution.

The process of perversion was made to culminate in the provision of Article

361 which granted immunity to Governor. It is fantastic that he was vested with
unlimited discretionary powers yet the necessary guarantee, against mala fide and
prejudicial exercise of powers, particularly, when he was appointed by the Central
Government and conceived to be an agent of them, in terms of judicial review, was
not imposed. In England the King enjoys immunity for the reason that he can do no
wrong whereas in the Indian constitutional system the Governor, inspite of being
vested with unlimited discretionary powers, has not been made responsible to any
authority except the central Government, which being a party government, is apt to
promote him to take mala fide decisions to subserve the convenience of them rather
than allow him act from the position of a constitutional head of state. Thus, the
immunity enjoyed by the Governor made him to exercise his pre-rogatives in

57
Ibid, p. 502.
58
Ibid.
59
Ibid.
60
Ibid.

91
violation of the recognized parliamentary norms because in doing so he could stand
in good stead to the expediency of them whose agent he was.

It becomes clear from the above-mentioned decisions of the High Courts and
the Supreme Court that the Governor's discretion to dismiss the Chief Minister is
exercisable only if the Chief Minister loses his majority in the Assembly and this
has to be ascertained only on the floor of the House and not in the chambers of
the Governor. It is very clear now that the Governor's pleasure is to be exercised
for promotion, and not for supplanting, the democratic parliamentary system. The
Governor ought not to exercise his pleasure at his own whim and fancy but only
after a floor test in the Assembly.

Thus, the Governor's discretion to dismiss the Ministry has been

effectively restricted by judicial pronouncements.

In the year 2005, the Governor of Jharkhand was ordered by the Supreme
Court for holding a floor test to determine which party/political alliance
commanded a majority in Jharkhand. The Court made it clear that the discretionary
power under Article 164(1) of the Governor is subject to judicial review. And the
exercise of such power can constitutionally be insured by conducting floor test.
Thus, the democratic principle propounded in Bommai case61 was again sounded in
this case and so as with Arjun Munda v. Governor of Jharkhand.62

In Rameshwar Prasad and oths v. Union of India, Supreme Court held that
“It is a unique case. Earlier cases that came up before this Court were those where
the dissolutions of Assemblies were ordered on the ground that the parties in power
had lost the confidence of the House. The present case is of its own kind where
before even the first meeting of the Legislative Assembly, its dissolution has been
ordered on the ground that attempts are being made to cobble a majority by illegal
means and lay claim to form the Government in the State and if these attempts
continue, it would amount to tampering with constitutional provisions.”63

It was further observed in the above case that like in Bommai's case, there is
no material whatsoever except the ipse dixit of the Governor. The action which
results in preventing a political party from staking claim to form a Government after

61
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1.
62
(2005) 3 SCC 399
63
2006(2) SCC, p. 1.

92
election, on such fanciful assumptions, if allowed to stand, would be destructive of
the democratic fabric. It is one thing to come to the conclusion that the majority
staking claim to form the Government, would not be able to provide stable
Government to the State but it is altogether different thing to say that they have
garnered majority by illegal means and, therefore, their claim to form the
Government cannot be accepted. In the latter case, the matter may have to be left to
the wisdom and will of the people, either in the same House it being taken up by the
opposition or left to be determined by the people in the elections to follow. Without
highly cogent material, it would be wholly irrational for constitutional authority to
deny the claim made by a majority to form the Government only on the ground that
the majority has been obtained by offering allurements and bribe which deals have
taken place in the cover of darkness but his undisclosed sources have confirmed
such deals. The extra-ordinary emergency power of recommending dissolution of a
Legislative Assembly is not a matter of course to be resorted to for good
governance or cleansing of the politics for the stated reasons without any authentic
material. These are the matters better left to the wisdom of others including
opposition and electorate. It was also contended that the present is not a case of
undue haste. The Governor was concerned to see the trend and could legitimately
come to the conclusion that ultimately, people would decide whether there was an
'ideological realignment", then there verdict will prevail and the such realigned
group would win elections, to be held as a consequence of dissolution. It is urged
that given a choice between going back to the electorate and accepting a majority
obtained improperly, only the former is the real alternative. The proposition is too
broad and wide to merit acceptance. Acceptance of such a proposition as a relevant
consideration to invoke exceptional power under Article 356 may open a floodgate
of dissolutions and has far reaching alarming and dangerous consequences. It may
also be a handle to reject post-election alignments and realignments on the ground
of same being unethical, plunging the country or the State to another election. This
aspect assumes great significance in situation of fractured verdicts and in the
formation of coalition Governments. If, after polls two or more parties come
together, it may be difficult to deny their claim of majority on the stated ground of
such illegality. These are the aspects better left to be determined by the political
parties which, of course, must set healthy and ethical standards for themselves, but,
in any case, the ultimate judgment has to be left to the electorate and the legislature

93
comprising also of members of opposition.64

Rameshwar Prasad case65 has reiterated the principles enunciated in State of

Rajasthan66 and Bommai case67 with more constitutional conscience. The Court
made it clear that Article 356 contains an emergency power and this emergency
power should be used not as normal power. “Article 356 confers a power to be
exercised by the President in exceptional circumstances to discharge the obligation
cast upon him by Article 355”. By referring Articles 74(1) and (2), the Court held
that due to Bommai case68 Article 74(2) is not a bar against scrutiny of materials on
the basis of which the President has issued Proclamation under Article 356. This
approach shows objectivity even in subjectivity. Constitutionalism or constitutional
system of Government abhors absolutism—it is premised on the rule of law by
which subjective satisfaction is substituted by objectivity, provided for by provision
of the Constitution itself.69

Recently, THE Governor of Karnataka, H.R. Bhardwaj, put the Government

of India in a most embarrassing position by recommending imposition of President's
Rule in the State. In the process, he exposed, once again, his unfitness for the office
he holds.

The rejection of his recommendation means that his prestige, none too high
at any time, will suffer a terrible blow. Had the recommendation been accepted, it
would have landed not only the Government of India but also the President in a
most embarrassing situation in the Supreme Court. The court would be entitled to
examine the material on the basis of which the Council of Ministers advised the
President, and the onus of justifying the reckless action would not be on the
petitioners but on the Union of India.

64
Ibid.
65
Rameshwar Prasad (VI) v. Union of India, (2006) 2 SCC 1.
66
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, (1977) 3 SCC 592.
67
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1.
68
Ibid.
69
Rameshwar Prasad (VI) v. Union of India, (2006) 2 SCC 1 at pp. 94 & 96, paras 96 & 100.

94
d) The Role of Governor in appointment and Dismissal of Ministers:-

i) Appointment:

According to Article 164 (1) "the Chief Minister shall be appointed by the
Governor and the other ministers shall be appointed by the Governor on the advice
of Chief Minister and the Ministers hold office during the pleasure of the Governor.

"Provided that in the States of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa, there shall
be a Minister incharge of tribal welfare of the Scheduled Castes and backward
classes or any other work.

"(2) The Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the Legislative

Assembly of the State.

"(3) Before a Minister enters upon his office, the Governor shall administer
to him the oaths of office and of secrecy according to the forms set out for
the purpose in the Third Schedule.70

"(4) A Minister who for any period of six consecutive months is not a
member of the Legislature of the Slate shall at the expiration of that period
cease to be a Minister

"(5) The salaries and allowances of Minister shall be such as the Legislature may
from time to time by law determine and, until the legislature of the State
so determines, shall be as specified in the Second Schedule."

This Article shows that the Ministers are to be appointed only on the
recommendation of the Chief Minister and the expression "shall" in clause (1) of
Article 164 is mandatory 71 and not directive. It is not necessary for a minister
to a member of either House of the State Legislature at the time of his appointment
as a Minister. In case if any person appointed as a minister of the Slate Legislature,
who is not a member of the State Legislature, he will cease to be Minister after the
expiration of six months unless he becomes the member of the State Legislature
within this period.

70
I, A.B. swear in the name of God that I will hear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India by law
established, (that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India) that I will faithfully and conscientiously
discharge my duties as a Minister for the State of... and that I will do right to all manner of people in
accordance with the Constitution and law without fear or favour, affection or ill will”
71
“The Constitution says there “shall be a Council of Ministers". Normal grammatical meaning of "shall" is
mandatory”. J. Hedge, Statesman, February 16, 1971, p.6.

95
 On February 21, 1998, the U.P. Governor dismissed the Kalyan Singh
Government and installed in office another person (Jagdambika Pal) as the
Chief Minister. The Governor's plea was that the Kalyan Singh Ministry had
lost its majority in the Legislative Assembly because of defection of some of
its supporters. There was no vote of no-confidence passed against the Kalyan
Singh Government nor was the Government asked to go to the Assembly to
seek a vote of confidence. The action of the Governor was widely criticized as
amounting to trampling upon democratic conventions and the Governor
misusing his position for partisan ends.

A writ petition was filed in the Allahabad High Court on February 23,
98, challenging the action of the Governor. Following Bommai. The Allahabad
High Court overturned the Governor's action, restored the Kalyan Singh
Government and left it open to the Governor to convene a session of the State
Legislative Assembly to prove its majority.72 Then, the newly installed Chief
Ministry approached the Supreme Court. The Court directed that a special session
of the Assembly be summoned which would have the only agenda to have a
composite floor test between the two contending panics in order to ascertain who
out of the two contesting claimants of Chief Ministership enjoys a majority in the
House. 73 The floor test was held as directed by the Supreme Court and Kalyan
Singh won the day.

It becomes clear from the above-mentioned decisions of the High Courts and
the Supreme Court that the Governor's discretion to dismiss the Chief Minister is
exercisable only if the Chief Minister loses his majority in the Assembly and this
has to be ascertained only on the floor of the House and not in the chambers of the
Governor. It is very clear now that the Governor's pleasure is to be exercised for
promotion, and not for supplanting, the democratic parliamentary system. The
Governor ought not to exercise his pleasure at his own whim and fancy but only
after a floor test in the Assembly. Thus, the Governor's discretion to dismiss the
Ministry has been effectively restricted by judicial pronouncements.

About the appointment of Ministers, the question arises, how far is it

possible for the Governor to influence the Chief Minister in he appointment of other

72
The Hindu int’l Ed. Dated February, 28, 98, p.1.
73
Jagdambika Pal v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 998: (1999) 9 SCC 95.

96
Ministers. Ordinary, when one of the political parties had a clear cut
majority and a clearly recognized leader, the Governor will have no say, when
the Governor and the party in power belong to different political parties unless,
however, the Chief Minister allows him to suggest some names. 74 If the Governor
and Chief Minister belong to the same political party, then it will, to a great
extent, depend upon the personal equation of the Governor with the Chief Minister.

If none of the political parties had a clear cut majority in the Assembly and
hostile coalition comes into power, the Governor may not in a position to influence
appointment of Ministers for the ministers are usually the nominees of the political
parties. But if there is no pre-existing coalition and none of the political parties had
a clear- cut majority in the Governor gets a chance to assessing the claims and
counter claims of various contenders for the office of the Chief Minister. While
doing so that Governor may have some influence on the appointment of the
ministers. In this sense in a very rare and exceptional circumstances Governor may
play a negative role.
At the state of administering oath to the ministers the Governor plays
a very constitutional important role. When Governor is convinced that the further
expansion of the Ministry will make the size of the ministry ridiculously
large, may refuse to administer oath of office and secrecy as a minister to a
person recommended by the Chief Minister. Big size of the Ministry was
recommended by the Chief Minister. Big site of Inc Ministry was considered as a
misuse of the Constitutional powers according to Shri B.N. Chakravarti, the former
Governor of Haryana and there may be some justification for it.75
ii) Dismissal of a Minister:
A Minister after his appointment holds office during the pleasure of the Governor.
According to the British practice "not only is the Prime Minister sun, around whom
the planets revolve, he has also got the power of designating who the planets should be and
then to change the interplanetary position of the various planets or to drop them out of the
solar system.76 In England “If the Prime Minister finds a particular minister unsuitable for

74
For example, Annadurai, when he formed his first ever DMR. Ministry in Madras. in 1967,
discussed his list of Ministers with Ujjal Singh, then their Governor and accepted some of the
suggestions made by him in this respect. Journal of the Society for Study of State Governments. Vol.
IV, Nos.3&4. July-December 1971, p.354.
75
Asian Recorder. December 10-16, 1967, p. 8066.
76
J.L.Kapur, formerJudge of the Supreme Court, National Herald, July 20, 1970. p.6.

97
the task for which he is appointed or is a person who is likely to rock the boat, it is the
prerogative of the Prime Minister to ask that Minister to resign.”77
But what is the position in India. According to the Punjab High Court “it is
open to the Governor under the Constitution to dismiss an individual minister at his
pleasure."78 Ordinarily in India, the pleasure of the Chief Minister for when the
Chief Minister asks a particular Minister to resign79 and if he does not do so, then he can
advice the Governor to dismiss him. But this practice may not always be followed in
all the cases and there is an example where the Governor has refused to dismiss some of
the Ministers on the recommendation of the Chief Minister. This happened in U.P. in
Charan Singh's case. Charan Singh formed the Ministry after the fall of the Ministry
of C.B. Gupta because of the split of the Congress. It was a Single party minority
government and with coalition of BKD came into existence. But after some time
there were differences between the WM and the Congress and as a result there of
Charan Singh asked the Ministers of Congress party to resign but they refused to do
so.80 Thereupon Charan Singh advised the Governor to relieve them and to
handover, their departments to him. 81 The Governor accepted the advice of
transferring the departments or these Ministers to the Chief Minister but did not
relieve the Ministers of their officials and allowed them lo stay as Ministers
without portfolio. 82 This instance has no preceden 833 But the question is:
Should it become a precedent for the future?
The constitutional provisions also do not warrant any interpretation of than
what has been the practice. The Constitution imposes a collective responsibility
upon the ministers towards the legislature and collective responsibility is assured by
the enforcement of two principles: first, no person is nominated to the Council
except on the advice of the Chief Minister, secondly, no person is retained as a
member of the Council if the Chief Minister demands his dismissal.84

77
Ibid., July 21, 1970, p.5.
78
Tara Singh v. Director, Consolidation of Holdings, AIR. 1958. Punjab. 304.
79
U.P. Governor, G D. Tapax accepted resignations of 13 Ministers on the advice of R.N. Yadav, the
then Chief Minister on 11 Feb,1979.
80
Lok Sabha Debates, Vol. XLV, Nos. I-10, Nov. 19, 1970, Coals, 281-82.
81
Ibid.
82
Ibid.
83
M.P. Singh, Governors’ Power to dismiss Ministers or Council of Ministers — An Imperial Study,
13 JILI 626.
84
Dr. B.R. Arnbedkar cited in Kaul and Shokdher, Practice and procedure of ParIiament (1968)
p.537. A similar view has been expressed by Dr. V.N. Shukla, 2 J.C.P.S.No. 58, (1968).

98
 Therefore, the pleasure of the Governor is to be exercised in the light of the
collective responsibility of the Ministers and not “exclusively in his discretion”.85
The position being what it is in our constitution, the pleasure of the Governor
to dismiss ministers cannot be interpreted otherwise than as the pleasure of the
Chief Minister.86

Very recently in Punjab, Minister of State for forests, Harbans Lal was
dismissed by the Governor on the advice of Chief Minister Capt. Amarinder Singh.

e) The Role of Governor in Summoning the Stine Legislature:-

According to Article 174(1): "The Governor shall from time to time

summon the House or reach House of the Legislature of the State to meet at such time
and place as he thinks fit, but six months shall not intervene between its last sitting
in one session and date appointed for its first sitting in the next session."

Whether both the Houses of Legislature are to be summoned simultaneously

or separately? The Governor has discretion in this respect for Article 174(1) of the
Constitution empowers him to summon each House of the Legislature of the State
from "time to time" and under Article 175(1) of the Constitution the Governor may
address “either House of the Legislature of the State or both Houses assembled
together and may for that purpose require the attendance of the members.”
Moreover, the explanatory note given in Article 213(2) clearly says that both the
Houses can be summoned on different dates. But Article 176(1) makes it mandatory
on the part of the Governor to address both the Houses assembled together at the
commencement of "the first session after each general election to the Legislative
Assembly and at the commencement of the first session of each year." According to
the decision of Calcutta,87 Orissa88 and Mysore89 High Courts session cannot be
commenced without the address of the Governor. Therefore, it is clear that the
Governor have no alternative but to summon both the Houses of the State
Legislature simultaneously for there is no provision in the Constitution for a

85
The opinion expressed in Mahavir Prasad V. PC Ghosh, A.I.R. 1969 Col 198 seems to be wrong
and cannot be followed as law. For a discussion of that opinion, see KC. Joshi the Governors’ power
to dismiss the Ministers, 12 J.I.L.I.127.
86
The A.R. Committee has made also a similar recommendation in its report on the State
administration at p.11.
87
Syed Abdul vs. West Bengal Legislative Assembly, AIR 1956 Calcutta. 369.
88
Sardhakar v. Orissa Legislative Assembly. AIR 1952, Orissa 234.
89
H. Siddeveerappa v. The State of Mysore, AIR 1971 (201). Mysore.

99
separate Governor's address to each House of the State Legislature.

In respect of summoning the Houses or House of the Legislature of the

State, the role of the Governor is controversial one. One school of thought says that
Governor cannot summon the State Legislature without the advice of the Chief
Minister. Other school of thought says that Governor has discretion to summon the
legislature or summon the legislature without the advice of the Chief Minister.

There are certain functions which have been expressly and specifically
vested in the President and the Governor by various provisions of the Constitution.
They cannot be delegated to any other person. D.D. Basu has stated that "the result
is that though all the executive powers of the union is also vested in the President
by Article 53(1), a distinction is to be maintained which are vested in the President
by Article 53(c) generally, and the other provisions of the Constitution such as
articles 123, 124, 217, 268-79, 309, 310, proviso(c) to Article 311(2), 338, 340,
344, 356, 360, which specifically vested particular functions in the President. The
latter powers cannot, according to the Supreme Court, be delegated by the President
to other person or authority, but must be exercised by the resident personally.''90

Since article 85(1) of the Constitution which empowers the President to

summon each house of Parliament, belongs to the category of the articles mentioned
above and article 164(1) is a carbon copy of article 85(1), therefore, it is a power
given to the Governor, which he can exercise independently, at least in extra-
ordinary circumstances. This contention is further supported by the fact that the
power of summoning the State Legislature has been given by the same article which
has given the Governor, the power of proroguing and dissolution and that too in the
same unambiguous language.

f) The Role of Governor in proroguing the State Legislature:-

Besides summoning the State Legislature, the Governor has the power to
prorogue the Legislative Assembly under article 174(2)(a). Regarding the power of
prorogue, the question arises whether the Governor should exercise his individual
judgement or he should always act on the advice of the Chief Minister while
exercising this power. On this point there are two schools of thought, according to
the first school of thought, the Governor should always act on the advice of the

90
D.D. Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, p.369.

100
Chief Minister but according to the other school the Governor may in exceptional
circumstances exercise his individual judgement. For example, K.C. Reddy, B.
Gopala Reddy, Y.B. Chavan,91 Govinda Menon and A.K. Sen, were of the opinion
that the Governor should exercise this power on the advice of the Chief Ministers.
The Madras High Court also agrees with this view.92 But persons like N.G. Ranna,93
N.C. Chatterjee,94 Nath Pai, Acharya Kripalani95 and C.K. Dhaptary96 were not
agree with this view. Ordinarily, the power to prorogue the House should be
exercised by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister provided he had a
majority in the Legislative Assembly. But the problems arises when the Chief
Minister Advices the Governor to prorogue the House in order to prevent a vow
of no confidence against himself or against the speaker on the floor of the House.
Whenever, such a situation develops, how far will it be constitutionally proper on
the part of the Governor to accept the advice of the Chief Minister to prorogue the
House in the middle of the session. K.C. Reddy, the Governor of Madhya Pradesh
defended his action on the ground that “he was sure that under the Constitution,
he was required to accept the advice of the Chief Minister. This was the practice in
UK and in many other democracies." He said that in UK even when a defeated
Prime Minister had asked for dissolution of Parliament, almost on all occasions the
advice had been accepted by the Monarch."

The contention that the Governor is to go by the advice of the Chief Minster
in proroguing the House cannot be accepted in toto. The Governor can
exercise his own discretion in this respect at least in certain extra-ordinary
situations and this position has been accepted even by the Governor's
Committee itself, when it says that "as regards prorogation, the Governor
should normally act on the advice of his Council of Ministers. But if a Chief
Minister advices prorogation of the Legislative Assembly when a notice of motion
of no confidence is pending, the Governor should first satisfy himself that
notice of no confidence motion is "not frivolous and is a genuine exercise of the
Parliamentary right of an opposition to challenge the Government

91
Lok Sabha Debates, 4th series, Vol. 7 Nos. 41-45, July 20, 1967.
92
Mathialagan v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, The Madras Law Journal, Feb. 8, 1973, Vol. 144-6, p.
131.
93
Lok Sabha Debates, Vol. 7, Nos. 41-45, July 20, 1967 Col. 13470.
94
Ibid., Col. 13437.
95
Ibid.
96
Ibid.

101
majority." 97 This contention is supported by the Mysore High Court which has
held that "the power of proroguing a session of the Legislative is exclusively that of
the Governor in whom rests the power to summon the same."98

Supreme Court agrees with this view when it says that "Article 174(2)(3)
which enable Governor to prorogue the legislature does not indicate any
restriction on this power.99

g) The Role of Governor in dissolving the Assembly:-

The Supreme Court has imposed curbs on the power to dismiss governments
in the states. The abuse has ended. But the reign of abusive governors has not. It
will not so long as the present constitutional scheme lingers without effective
reform. The court`s recent ruling helps governors who face the sack when the
regime at the centre changes. They do not help chief ministers harassed by
governors appointed to do that job.100

The institution of the Governor was misused to a great extent especially

after 1967 to gain political mileage because of two reasons: (a) there was one-party
dominance at the Centre, and (b) the lack of political power and awareness on the
part of the Opposition.101

The contemporary period has witnessed a shift in the political party system.
It has moved from one- party dominance to a multiparty system, thanks to the
growth of regional parties. The trend of the multiparty system, which we have been
noticing today in Indian society, is making political institutions more and more
democratised. This process of democratisation is also making its impact upon the
role of the Governor. The multiparty system has replaced one-party dominance; as a
result the party, which is in the power, cannot afford to use the Governor as its
instrument. If any party tries to misuse the institution of the Governor, the
Opposition parties put pressure upon the government to reverse the undemocratic
and dictatorial decision.102

97
Journal of the Society for Study of State Governments. Vol. V. Jan.-March 1972. No. I, p. 69.
98
Siddaveerappa & others vs. The State of Mysore, AIR 1971, Mysore, 200.
99
State of Punjab v. Satya Pal, AIR,1969,SC 903.
100
‘Role of Governor’ by ‘A.G. Noorani’ on June 5, 2010 at “DAWN.COM”.
101
Ibid.
102
Ibid.

102
 Though India has suffered many setbacks from the federal point of view, it
has been quite successful in reaching consensus and settlement. This has been
possible because of its capacity to develop harmonious conditions of federal polity.
So, the question arises: what are the means which help us reach an agreement? The
answer is: a federal model of government and the human actors who make this
model a success with the help of political parties which are the backbone of
democratic societies-they are the main vehicle of representation of the people.103

Direct democracy is not feasible in modern nation-states because of their big

size and complex social arrangements. There must be an agency to make decisions
on the behalf of the people. Political parties shoulder the responsibility to perform
this task. So the political parties play an absolutely vital role in making democracy a
success and they are the lifeblood for democratic societies; without them no one can
even think of establishing a democratic society.104

In the recent past Indian society has seen a sea- change in the nature of the
party system. It has shifted from one-party dominance to a multi-party system. The
year 1989 was a landmark in the Indian political system because the people of India
witnessed for the first time the introduction of a multi-party system. The Indian
citizens kept this trend alive in 1996 when the United Front assumed power at the
Centre. Thereafter the BJP formed the government at the Centre with the help of its
regional allies in 1998 and in 1999 thereby giving the Indian federal model a new
shape. It manifested a substantive degree of cooperation between the Central
Government and regional parties. The 2004 elections have also compelled leaders
of different parties to form a coalition government at the Centre. The political
environment which India has developed in the last 17 years proves the point that
now India is probably taking steps towards cooperative federalism. Earlier there
were conflicts between the party at the Centre and regional parties in the States. But
it was felt after 1996 that Indian politics was shifting towards consensus politics.
This shift has also affected the position of the Governor. The role of the Governor
has been one of the important reasons of conflict between different political parties.
With the change in the nature of the political party system, there are changes in the
institution of the Governor. Earlier there was one-party dominance; as a result, the

103
Ibid.
104
Ibid.

103
Congress was in a position of making political use of the institution of the
Governor. In the post-1967 period the Congress had to face a difficult time because
it lost power in eight States and immediately the Congress started using the
Governor for its political interests. But democracy did not succumb to the
tendencies of totalitarianism. The Opposition parties put pressure upon the
Congress not to use the Governors for political benefit. Besides, the Opposition
parties also hit back at the Congress in 1977 by suspending Congress Ministries in
eight States. After 1980 the politics of pressure increased as we have seen in cases
of Andhra Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir.105

The more political parties we have, the more political pressure upon the
party in power to reverse its undemocratic decisions. We also noticed tactics of
pressure in Bihar and Jharkhand in the beginning of 2006. Pressure politics forces
politicians to reach the politics of consensus.106

The multiparty system in the recent past has helped evolve the politics of
consensus regarding the role of the Governor and this system will put a check upon
undesirable misuse of the institution of the Governor. Absence of one-party
dominance will lead to more democratic values concerning the role of the Governor
and inspire the governments in power to make the Governor the protector of the
Constitution and the Governors will work in the same way as the Constitution-
makers wanted.107

Besides summoning and proroguing the session of the Legislature, the

Governor has the power to dissolve Legislative Assembly of the State under article
174(2)(b) of the Constitution. In this connection it may be asked as to how far
the advice of the Chief Minister to dissolve the Legislative Assembly is
binding on the Governor. This controversy started from Madhya Pradesh, when
in July 1967, G.N. Singh along with 30 supporters defected from the Congress
party and thereby reduced the Ministry of D.P. Mishra to a minority in the
Assembly. The Chief Minister getting the session prorogued and declared that he
would advice the Governor to dissolve the Assembly and the then Home Minister
Y.B. Chavan came forward with a theory that "a defeated Chief Minister had the

105
Ibid.
106
Ibid.
107
Ibid.

104
Constitutional right to ask for a dissolution of the Legislature and the Governor
had no discretion to refuse it Even Mrs. Gandhi, the Prime Minister, told the Press
Correspondents that "Governor has a constitutional obligation to accept the advice
of his Chief Minister with regard to dissolution of the Assembly whether the Chief
Minister at the time of giving such advice enjoyed majority support or not.

There are others who do not agree with this view. Dr. J.R. Siwach says
that "it seems that the Home Ministry expressed these views are just to pressurize
the legislators so that under the threat of dissolution, the defectors may come back
to the Congress fold and the further defections from the congress may stop."108

There is no doubt that the Governor had a discretion so far as the

dissolution of the legislative Assembly is concerned and there is no ambiguity
in this respect. This is also the opinion of the Committee of the Governors. 109
K.C. Reddy, the Governor of Madhya Pradesh agreed with this view when he said
that:

"In normal circumstances the Governor, as the Constitutional Head, was

required to act with the aid and by the advice of his Council of Ministers. But on
certain occasions he had to exercise his functions in a discretionary
manner. The question of recommended dissolution of the Assembly and
invoking Presidential proclamation under the relevant Article or the
Constitution called for the exercise of the Governors discretion, he said the
question of the Governor acting on the of the Council of Ministers did not arise in
such a case and therefore, was no reason for accepting the outgoing Chief
Minister's advice. If the Governor decides, while exercising his individual
judgment, not to accept such advice then his decision cannot be challenged in any
court of law.110

Further article 174(2)(b) is a carbon copy of article 85(2)(b) which

empowers the President to dissolve the House of the people. While speaking on
article 85(2)(b) Dr. B.R. Ambedkar said that “the President of the Indian Union will
test the feelings of the House whether the House agrees that there should be
108
J.R Siwatch. Siwach, op.cit.
109
Journal of Society for study of State Governments, Vol. V Jan-March l972.No.l. p.69.
110
Article 163(2) says: If any question arises whether any matter is or not a matter as respect which
the Governor is by or under this question required to act in hit discretion, the decision of the
Governor in his discretion shall be final and the validity of anything done by the Governor shall not
be called in question on the ground that he ought not to have acted in his discretion.

105
dissolution or whether the House agrees that the affairs should be carried on with
some other leader without dissolution…”111

Therefore, B.R. Ambedkar agrees with the view that the President is not
bound by the advice to dissolve the House of the people. The position Governor is
also the same in this respect.

Further, "There are, however, circumstances which a sovereign may be

free to seek informal advice against that of the Prime Minister. If the sovereign can
be satisfied that (I) an existing Parliament is still vital and capable of doing its
job, (2) a general election would be detrimental to the national economy, more
particularly if it followed closely on the last election, and (3) he could rely on
finding another Prime Minister who was willing to carry on his Government for a
reasonable period with a working majority, the sovereign could constitutionally
refuse to grant a dissolution to the Prime Minister in office. 112 In 1939 all the
three conditions were satisfied when the Governor General of South Africa
refused a dissolution to his Prime Minister. Similarly the Governors of the Indian
States in the similar situation, if arise, constitutionally oblige to adopt such
convention.

h) Status of the Ministry after dissolution

What is the status of a ministry when the Assembly has been dissolved under
Article 174(2)(b)? Will the Ministry be known by the name of a care-taker Ministry
or will it be known by any other name? After dissolving the Assembly under Article
174(2)(b), the Governor of Haryana said that It would be wrong to call it a care-taker
Government. There is no provision for a care-taker Government in the Constitution.
Normally this term is used only for a Government which has resigned and which is asked by
the Governor to carry on till alternative arrangements are made. In this case no
minister has resigned. The Government had full authority, though in normal
circumstances such a Government does not bring forward any controversial piece of
legislation through ordinances. There is of course no legal bar but it is not desirable to do
so. But how far will it be constitutional on the part of the Ministry to get the Assembly
dissolve under article 174(2)(b) without submitting its own resignation? Will it not be a
violation of article 164(2) of the Constitution? This point came up for hearing in the
111
C.A.D. Vol. VIII. p.107.
112
Wade and Phillips, “Constitutional Law”, 1971. p.84

106
Supreme Court which decided that "when an Assembly is dissolved there is no failure of
the Constitutional Machinery within Article 356. Article 164(2) which provides that
the Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly of
the State has to be read in the same manner as we have read article 75(3)."113

Article 75(3) was interpreted by the Supreme Court in U.N. Rao v.

Shrimati Indira Gandhi which observed that: "provision of article 75(3) which
envisage the doctrine of Ministerial responsibility has to be harmoniously construed
with provisions of article 74(1) and article 75(2). This Construed, article 75(3)
applies only when the House of the people does not stand dissolved or prorogued. It
cannot, therefore, be said that on the dissolution of the House of the people, the
Prime Minister and other ministers must resign or be dismissed by the President.”114
Therefore, even after the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly of the State,
the Council of Ministers does not cease to hold office.115

i) The Role of the Governor in Legislation

According to article 168 of the Constitution the State Legislature consists of

the Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the Slate where there is a uni-
cameral legislature and when there is a bi-cameral legislature, it consists of the
Governor, the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council. The Governor,
therefore, is an integral part of the State Legislature and as such plays quite a
significant role in legislation under article 200.116

i) Powers of giving assent to Bills:

Assent to Bills – (Article 200) When a Bill has been passed by the

113
T.K.N. Rajgopal vs. T.M. Karunanidhi, AIR. 1971. S.C. 1551.
114
AIR. 1971 (S.C.). p.I002.
115
T.K.N.Rajgopal vs. T.M.Karunanidhi. AIR, 1971, S.C. 1551.
116
According to Article 200: “When a Bill has been passed by the Legislative Assembly of a State or,
in the case of a State having a legislative Council, has been passed by both Houses of the Legislature
of the State, it shall be presented to the Governor and the Governor shall declare either that he assents
to the Bill or that he withhold assent there from or that he reserves the Bill for the consideration of
the President. Provided that the Governor may. as soon as possible after the presentation to him of the
Bill for assent. return the Bill if it is not a Money will reconsider the Bill or any specified provisions
thereof and, in particular, will consider the desirability of introducing any such amendments at he
may recommend in his message and, when a Bill is so returned, the House or Houses shall reconsider
the bill accordingly, and if the Bill is passed again by the House or Houses with or without
amendment and presented to the Governor for assent, the Governor shall not withhold assent there
from. Provided further that the Governor shall not assent to, but shall reserve for the consideration of
the President any Bill which in the opinion of the Governor would, if it became law, so derogate from
the powers of the High court as to endanger the position which that court is by this Constitution
designed to fill."

107
Legislative Assembly of a State or, in the case of a State having a Legis lative
Council, has been passed by both Houses of the Legislature of the State, it
shall be presented to the Governor and the Governor shall declare either that
he assents to the Bill or that he withholds assent therefrom or that he reserves
the Bill for the consideration of the President:

Provided that the Governor may, as soon as possible after the

presentation to him of the Bill for assent, return the Bill if it is not a Money
Bill together with a message requesting that the House or Houses will
reconsider the Bill or any specified provisions thereof and, in particular, will
consider the desirability of introducing any such amendments as he may
recommend in his message and, when a Bill is so returned, the House or
Houses shall reconsider the Bill accordingly, and if the Bill is passed again by
the House or Houses with or without amendment and presented to the
Governor for assent, the Governor shall not withhold assent therefrom:

Provided further that the Governor shall not assent to, but shall reserve
for the consideration of the President, any Bill which in the opinion of the
Governor would, if it became law, so derogate from the powers of the High
Court as to endanger the position which that Court is by this Constitution
designed to fill.

When a bill has been passed by both the Houses of the Legislature of a
State, it shall be presented to the Governor, who may take one of the following four
courses:

i) He may assent to the bill,

ii) He may withhold his assent,

iii) He may reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President, or

iv) He may return the Bill to the Houses, if it is not a money bill, with a
request that the bill or any specified provision of it may be considered again and
emphasise, in particular, the desirability of introducing any such amendments as he
may recommend.

In the event of the Governor taking the fourth course, namely, returning the
bill for consideration, it shall be the duty of the houses to reconsider it. But if the

108
bill is passed again by the Houses and presented to the Governor for assent, he shall
not withhold assent there form. He must either give the assent or reserve the Bill for
the sanction of President.

In law the Governor can refuse to give his assent to a bill, i.e. he can veto a
bill. If he does so, the Bill cannot become an Act. But in the form of Government
set up under the constitution it would be politically impossible for a Governor to
refuse his assent to a Bill, after it has been passed by the Legislature, for he acts in
this matter, as in all other public matters, on the advice of his cabinet, and no bill
could pass through both the Houses and come before the Governor for his assent, if
it was opposed by the cabinet. The position of the Governor in this respect is
analogous to that of the king of England. In theory the king can also refuse to give
his assent, but the right of veto has not been exercised since the reign of Queen
Anne. It may be said to have fallen into disuse as a consequence of ministerial
responsibility. The veto could only be exercised on ministerial advice and Governor
would wish to veto Bills for which it was responsible or one for the passage, of
which it had afforded facilities through the Ministry.117

It has been held in Purshothaman v. State of Kerala (AIR 1962 SC 694) that
there is no time limit for granting the assent. This decision lays down the
following further propositions: (a) A Bill pending in the Legislature (either House)
does not lapse on proroguing of Assembly, (b) A Bill pending before the Governor
or the President for his assent does not lapse on dissolution of the Assembly and (c)
Only the Legislative Assembly can be dissolved but not the Legislative Council.118
The Constitution does not furnish any guidance to the Governor - in which matters
he should accord his assent and in which matters he should withhold assent.

ii) Reservation of the Bills for the Consideration of the President:

The second proviso to article 200 of the Constitution empowers to the

Governor to reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President. This proviso
intended to preserve the independence, dignity and status of a High Court. Under the
Constitution the Stare Legislatures have exclusive law-making power on matters
touching the jurisdiction and powers of all Courts within the State in respect of
matters within their exclusive competence. The powers might be used by the State
117
Wade and Phillips, Constitutional Law (third Edition) pp. 93-96.
118

109
Legislature to deprive the High Court of much of its jurisdiction and power and thus
to lower the prestige and influence of the High Court. As a safeguard, the Governor
has been directed by this proviso not to assent to, but to reserve for consideration by
the President, any bill which would, in the opinion of the Governor, if passed into
law, so derogate from the powers of the High Court as to endanger the role which it
is designed to fulfil under the Constitution.

“The power vested in the Governor to reserve a Bill for the consideration of
the president is discretionary. It is his discretion whether the Bill should be reserved
for the consideration of the President, and in this respect the Governor becomes an
important link between the Union and the States thereby enabling the union to
exercise some kind of control over the Legislative activities of the State. For
example, the Kerala Education Bill of 1957 and the Kerala Agrarian Reform Bill of
1957, passed by the State Legislature were reserved for the consideration of the
President and later returned by him for reconsideration, by the state Legislature the
former in the light of the advisory opinion of the supreme court and the latter in the
light of changes suggested by him. The Madhya Pradesh panchayat Bill of 1961,
was reserved by the Governor for the consideration of the President but it was
returned on the ground of some of its provisions being undemocratic and opposed to
the Directive Principles.”119

Besides reserving the Bills for the consideration of the President under the
second proviso of article 200, the Governor can also reserve the Bills for the
consideration of the President under article 254(2).120

The Supreme Court in Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1974 SC

2192). The decision lays down the following propositions:

“We have extensively excerpted from various sources not for adopting
‘quotational jurisprudence’ but to establish that the only correct construction can be
that in constitutional law the ‘functions’ of the President and Governor and the
‘business’ of Government belong to the Ministers and not to the head of State, that
‘aid and advice’ of ministers are terms of art which, in law mean, in the Cabinet
119
V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India, p. 338.
120
This article says: “Where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect one of the matters
enumerated in the concurrent list contains any provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an
existing law with respect to that matter, then the law so made by the legislature of such state shall, if
it has been reserved for the consideration of President and has received his assent, prevail in that
State.”

110
context of our constitutional scheme, that the aider acts and the adviser decides in
his own authority and not subject to the power of President to accept or reject such
action or decision, except, in the case of Governors, to the limited extent that
Article 163 permits and his discretion, remote controlled by the Centre, has play”.

As rightly pointed out by Sri M.C. Setalvad, the first Attorney General of
India, when consulted by Dr. Rajendra Prasad (in connection with the Hindu Code
Bill controversy): “It (Article74) applies to every function and power vested in the
President, whether it relates to addressing the House or returning a Bill for
reconsideration or assenting or withholding assent to the Bill”.

“Of course, there is some qualitative difference between the position of the
President and the Governor. The former, under Article 74 has no discretionary
powers; the latter too has none, save in the tiny strips covered by Articles 163(2),
371-A(1)(b) and (d), 371-A(2)(b) and (f), VI Schedule para 9(2) (and VI Schedule
para 18(3), until omitted recently with effect from 21.1.1972). These discretionary
powers exist only where expressly spelt out and even these are not left to the sweet
will of the Governor but are remote-controlled by the Union Ministry which is
answerable to Parliament for those actions. Again, a minimal area centering round
reports to be despatched under Article 356 may not, in the nature of things, be
amenable to ministerial advice. The practice of sending periodical reports to the
Union Government is a pre-constitutional one and it is doubtful if a Governor could
or should report behind the back of his Ministers. For a centrally appointed
constitutional functionary to keep a dossier on his Ministers or to report against
them or to take up public stances critical of Government policy settled by the
Cabinet or to interfere in the administration directly – these are unconstitutional
faux pas and run counter to parliamentary system. In all his constitutional
‘functions’ it is the Ministers who act; only in the narrow area specifically marked
out for discretionary exercise by the Constitution, he is untrammeled by the State
Ministers’ acts and advice. Of course, a limited free-wheeling is available
regarding choice of Chief Minister and dismissal of the Ministry, as in the English
practice adapted to Indian conditions”.

When deciding a dispute under Article 192(1), the Governor acts on the
advice of the Election Commission and not on the advice of the Council of
Ministers.

111
 “The omnipotence of the President and of the Governor at State level is
euphemistically inscribed in the pages of our Fundamental Law with the obvious
intent that even where express conferment of power or functions is written into the
Articles, such business has to be disposed of decisively by the Ministry answerable
to the Legislature and through it vicariously to the people, thus vindicating our
democracy instead of surrendering it to a single summit soul whose deification is
incompatible with the basics of our political architecture”.

In this connection, reference may also be made to the Constituent Assembly

Debates, Vol.9. At page 61, the following extract from the speech of T.T.
Krishnamachari may be noticed: “I would ask him (Dr. Shibanlal Saxena, a member
of C.A.) to remember one particular point to which Dr. Ambedkar drew pointed
attention, viz., that the Governor will not be exercising his discretion in the matter
of referring a Bill back to the House with a message. That provision has gone out
of the picture. The Governor is no longer with any discretion. If … the Governor
sends a Bill back for further consideration, he does so expressly on the advice of his
Council of Ministers”. (The speech of Dr. Ambedkar referred to by T.T.
Krishnamachari is at page 41 of the same volume.)

It has been held by the Supreme Court in Hoechst Pharmaceuticals v. State

of Bihar (1983 SC 1019) that the Governor’s power to reserve for the consideration
of the President cannot be questioned in court. The following observations in the
judgment, though made while dealing with a question posed from a different angle,
are relevant:

“A Bill which attracts Article254(2) or Article304(b) where it is introduced

or moved in the Legislative Assembly of a State without the previous sanction of
the President or which attracted Article31(3) as it was then in force, or falling under
the second proviso to Article200 has necessarily to be reserved for the consideration
of the President. There may also be a Bill passed by the State Legislature where
there may be a genuine doubt about the applicability of any of the provisions of the
Constitution which require the assent of the President to be given to it in order that
it may be effective as an Act. In such a case, it is for the Governor to exercise his
discretion and to decide whether he should assent to the Bill or should reserve it for
consideration of the President to avoid any future complication. Even if it
ultimately turns out that there was no necessity for the Governor to have reserved a

112
Bill for the consideration of the President, still he having done so and obtained the
assent of the President, the Act so passed cannot be held to be unconstitutional on
the ground of want of proper assent. This aspect of the matter, as the law now
stands, is not open to scrutiny by the courts.”

In the matter of granting or withholding his assent or in the matter of

reserving a Bill for the consideration of the President, the Governor must act
according to the advice tendered by his Council of Ministers except in rare and
exceptional cases, for example, where the provisions of the Bill are patently
unconstitutional or are beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature
or where they derogate from the scheme and framework of the Constitution so as
to endanger the sovereignty, unity and integrity of the nation or where they clearly
violate Fundamental Rights or other constitutional limitations. The practice of
reserving Bills for the consideration of the President may be stopped except where
it is required by one or the other provisions of the Constitution or to meet some
other constitutional purpose. A reference of the Bill to the President must also
contain the material facts, the points for consideration and the grounds upon which
the reference has been made. A convention must be established whereunder the
President should dispose of a Bill sent to him for his consideration within four
months. The President should not withhold his assent except on the ground of
patent unconstitutionality, etc. as pointed out hereinabove. In matters where his
assent is required by the constitutional provisions, he shall keep in mind the
constitutional provisions and the interests of the nation and the State for granting or
refusing his assent. The Commission, however, recommended that the Constitution
itself should not prescribe any time limit either for the Governor or the President
and that the matter should be allowed to be governed by conventions and good
sense of the relevant persons.121

iii) Previous recommendation for introducing certain bills:

“(1) A bill or amendment making provision for any of the matters specified
in sub-clause (a) to (f) of clause (1) of article 199 shall not be introduced or moved
except on the recommendation of the Governor.

(2) A bill which, it enacted and brought into operation, would involve

121
*Added*

113
expenditure from the consolidated fund of a state, shall not be passed by a house of
the Legislature of the State unless the Governor has recommended to that House the
consideration of the Bill.”122

Besides this “No demand for a grant shall be made except on the
recommendation of the Governor."123

iv) Ordinance Making power of the Governor:

The Ordinance making power of the Governor under Article 213 is similar
to that of the President under Art 123. The Governor can issue Ordinance
only when two conditions are fulfilled:-

(1) The Governor can only issue Ordinances when the Legislative
Assembly of a State is not in session or where there are two Houses in a State Both
Houses are not in session.

(2) The Governor must be satisfied that circumstances exist which

render it necessary for him to take immediate action. The court cannot question the
validity of the Ordinance on the ground that there was no necessity or sufficient
ground for issuing the Ordinance by the Governor. The existence of such necessity
is not a justifiable issue.124 The exercise of ordinance making power is not
discretionary. The Governor exercises this power on the advice of the Cabinet.

An Ordinance shall have the same force and effect as an Act of the
Legislature. It can override the judgment of the High Court under Article 266.125

The Ordinance shall be laid before the Legislative Assembly of the State or
where there is a Legislative Council in the State, before both Houses and shall cease
to operate at the expiration of six weeks form the re-assembly of the Legislature,
unless it is approved earlier by the Legislature. The Ordinance may be withdrawn at
any time by the Governor. The Ordinance-making power of the Governor is
extensive with the Legislative powers of the State legislature. He can only issue
Ordinance on the subjects on which the State Legislature is empowered to make
laws e.g., State list and Concurrent List. Both Central and State Legislatures can
make laws on subjects mentioned in the Concurrent List. According to Article 213

122
Article 207.
123
Article 203(3).
124
Upendra lal v. Narayani Devi. AIR 1968 MP 90.
125
State of Orissa v. Bhupendra Kumar, AIR 1962 SC 945.

114
(3) therefore, an Ordinance will be invalid to the extent, it makes any provision
which would be invalid if enacted by the State Legislature. But such an Ordinance
will not be invalid if it has been issued by the Governor in pursuance of
instructions from the President.

The Governor cannot issue an ordinance without the instructions

from the President in the following cases: a Bill containing the same
provision would have required the provisional sanction of the President for its
introduction into the Legislature (b) he would have deemed it necessary to resent a
Bill for the consideration of the President. (c) all Act of the Legislature of the State
containing the same provisions would have been in valid unless having been
reserved for the consideration of the President and had received the assent of the
President.

The ordinance-making power vested in the executive is meant to be

exercised in exceptional circumstances i.e where immediate action is necessary.
It is not difficult to imagine the cases when ordinary law-making powers may
not be able to deal with a situation which may suddenly arise. The fears expressed
by members of the Constituent Assembly that the ordinance-making powers might
be abused by the executive is not unfounded.
126
In Satya Pal Dang v. State of Punjab on March 8, 1968 the Speaker
of the Punjab Legislative Assembly adjourned the House for two months making it
impossible to pass the Appropriation Bill before the end of the financial year. The
Governor, in order to overcome the crisis prorogued the Assembly on 11 th
March and promulgated an Ordinance on March 31, prescribing the procedure
for passing the budget and the Appropriation Bill, purporting to make the law for
the timely completion of financial business contemplated by Article 209. The
Ordinance provided that the House could be adjourned by a resolution of the
House. Assembly was re-summoned to meet on March 18. When the House
met in session the Speaker ruled the session to have been illegally called and that
his adjournment order of March 8 was still good. He then left the Chamber.
Thereafter the Deputy Speaker occupied the chair and estimates and the
Appropriation Bill were passed. The Deputy Speaker certified the Appropriation
Bill which was considered by the Legislative Assembly and approved. The Bill was
126
AIR 1949 SC 903.

115
then assented by the Governor. The questions involved were:-

(1) Whether a law contemplated by Article 209 can be prescribed by an

Ordinance?

(2) Whether the Speaker had power to question the validity of the Ordinance?

(3) Whether the Appropriation bill passed by the Legislature could be challenged
on the ground that the proper procedure had not been followed?

The Supreme Court held that the two Appropriation Acts passed
by the Legislative Assembly on March I8, 1968, and the Governor's Ordinance
regulating the proceedings of the House were constitutionally valid. The power of the
Governor to prorogue the House under Article 174 of the Constitution was absolute. This
power was invoked by the Governor in order to overcome the Speaker's ruling adjoining the
House which was delaying the business of the House. If there was an occasion for the
regulation of financial business by law under Article 209 of the Constitution it was
this. The Legislature could not be allowed to hibernate for two months while financial
business and the constitutional machinery and democracy itself wrecked.

The Governor's re-summoning the Legislature immediately after the prorogation

was also a step in the right direction as it set up once attain the democratic machinery in the
State which had been immediately disturbed by the action of the Speaker. This action of the
Governor respected the democratic right of the Legislature.

The power of the Governor to prorogue the House and promulgate an Ordinance was
untrammeled by the Constitution. In the present case, an emergency had arisen and the action
was perfectly understandable. The position in Punjab was that the Assembly was in session,
but it was in a state of inaction due to the Speaker's ruling. As the lime was running out, to
pass the budget the Governor had to act quickly to put back the Legislative machinery of
the State into life and he could do so only by the constitutional powers vested in him.
Commenting on the ruling of the Speaker that the House could not be resummoned by the
Governor when the House was adjourned the Supreme Court said 'this ruling was based on the
wrong assumption'. The speaker cannot pronounce upon the validity of the Governor's
ordinance. It can only be challenged by the Legislative Assembly by a resolution.

116
 The case of D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar127 furnishes a glaring example of
the abuse of the ordinance-making power by the Executive. The petitioner a
professor who carried a detailed research in the matter challenged the practice of the
State of Bihar in promulgating and re-promulgating ordinances on a large scale
without enacting them into Acts of the legislature and keeping them alive for an
indefinite period of time. He pointed out that the Governor of Bihar had
promulgated 256 ordinances between 1967 and 1981 and all these were kept alive
for periods ranging between 1 to 14 years by repromulgating them from time to
time. Out of these 256, 69 were repromulgated several times and kept alive with the
prior permission of the President of India. The five-judges bench of the Supreme
Court held it, "colourable exercise of power and amounted to fraud upon the
Constitution and, therefore, unconstitutional". The Court called it "usurpation by the
executive of the law-making function of the legislature". The power to promulgate
an ordinance is essentially a power to be used to meet an extraordinary situation
and it cannot be allowed to be "perverted to serve political ends."

The judgment of the Court would go a long way in preventing the

Government's "manipulative practice" of circumventing the provisions of the
Constitution regarding maximum time limit for the continuance of ordinance.

j) The Role of Governor in granting Pardon etc.

According to Article 161 of the Constitution, the Governor has "the

power to grant pardon,128 reprives,129 respites130 or remission of punishment or to
suspend, remite or commute131 the sentence of any person convicted of any
offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the
state extends."

127
(1987) I SCC 378.
128
Pardon: Pardon, according to Chief Justice Marshall is "an act of grace, proceeding from the
power entrusted with the execution of laws which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed
from the Punishment, the law inflicts for a crime he has committed." Bemard Schwartz, A
commentary on the Constitution of the United States, 1963. Vol. II, p. 85.
129
Reprieve: Reprieve means stay of the execution of a sentence or of the enforcement of the penalty
for temporary period. For example, if a pregnant women is sentence to death, a reprieve may be
gamed to her till the birth of a baby. D.D.Basu, commentary on the Constitution of India. 5th ed, Vol.
II,p.408.
130
Respite: It means awarding a sentence lesser than the one which has been prescribed by law, in
view of the fact that the accused had no previous conviction.
131
Commutation: Commutation is a change from a heavier penalty to a lighter one. For example a
sentence of death may be commuted to a like imprisonment.

117
 The powers conferred under article 72 and 161 to grant pardons, suspend,
remite or commute sentences, etc. of any convict are not judicial in nature and they
are to be exercised by the President or the Governor in the exercise of executive
functions and that also not be accordance with rules of natural justice. There is
no obligation to heal the parties concerned before rejecting or granting a mercy
petition.132

Nanavati's Case and Governor's power under article 161:

Kowas Moneckshaw Nanavati, subject to Naval Law, was convicted for murder
by an ordinary criminal court and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. After the
judgment was pronounced, the accused made an application for leave to appeal to
the Supreme Court. Before the warrant issued for the arrest of the accused could he
executed, the Governor issued an order under article 161 of the Constitution
suspending the sentence subject to the condition that the accused was to remain in
naval custody till the disposal of the appeal to the Supreme Court. The question
how was:

Should Nanavati surrender to his sentence as required by 0.21, R.5 of the

Supreme Court Rules before his application for special leave could be
considered?133

It is open for the Governor to grant a full pardon at any time even during the
pendency of the Case in the Supreme Court in exercise of what is ordinarily called
'Mercy jurisdiction'. But the Governor cannot exercise his power of the suspension
of the sentence for the period when the Supreme Court is seized of the case. Where the
Governor in the exercise of his powers under article 161 had passed an order granting
suspension of the sentence of a convict on this ground that he intended to file an
appeal before the Supreme Court, the order could only operate until the matter
became sub-justice in the Supreme court on the filing of the petition for special
leave to appeal. After filing of such a petition it will be for the Supreme Court to
pass such order as it though fit. The petitioner for special leave cannot be exempted
from the operation of 0.21 R.S. Supreme Court Rules by reason of the order of

132
Tara Singh v. Director AIR 1958. Punj, 302.
133
See for Bombay High Court view before the matter wes disposed of by the Supreme Court, AIR
1960, Bom. 502.

118
suspension of sentence passed by the Governor under Article 161.134

The power of the Governor to suspend a sentence would include the power
to attach lawful condition to it. The conditions should not be illegal, immoral or
impossible of performance.135

The court cannot examine the wisdom or expediency of exercise of the

power of remission by the Governor in a particular way or on the ground that it has
been improperly refused.136 The court can interfere if he exceeds his powers under
the Constitution e.g., if he exercises his power of pardon or remission in respect of
an offence against a law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State
dots not extend or in a case of punishment by Court martial.137

About the power to grant pardon, it should also be remembered that the
Governor of the State has the power to suspend, remit or commute a sentence both
under article 72(3) and under article 161 of the Constitution. V.N. Shukla explained
thus:

“Article 72 can be reconciled with article 161 by limiting the power of the
Governor to grant pardons to cases not covered by article 72. If so read the president
alone has the exclusive power to grant pardons reprieves, and respites in 211 cases
where the sentence is a sentence of death and both the President and the Governor have
concurrent powers in respect of suspension, remission and commutation of a sentence
of death. In other matters, i.e. in respect of offences against any law relating to a
matter to which the executive power of the Slate extends, the Governor has all the
powers enumerated in Article 161 of the Constitution, including the power to grant
pardons, reprieves and respites. To put it shortly, the power of the Governor to grant
pardons, reprieves and respites in all cases where the sentence is not a sentence of
death, and to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of arty parson is coextensive
with the executive power of the State”138

134
K.M.Nanavati v State of Bombay, AIR 1961 (S.C.)112.
135
State v. K.M. Nanavati, AIR 1960 Bom. 502.
136
Godse v. State of Mahareshtra, AIR 1961 S.C. 604.
137
State of Bombay v. Nanavati. AIR 1960. Bom. 602.
138
V.N.Shukla. op.cit., p.303.

119
(k) Indispensability of Governor's Office

Among the various political institutions that many would like to see
reformed that of the Governor would probably lead the list. This is mainly because
Governors in the recent past have very often misused their powers and served as an
instrument in toppling the opposite party government on one pretext or the other.

Since 1984, when it became a victim of the machinations of the then

Governor, the ruling Telugu Desam Party in Andhra Pradesh has looked upon the
Governor as an agent, if not a spy, of the Centre and the Congress (I). It has gone on
record as suggesting that this "post of luxury" should be scrapped.139 While partic-
ipating in a discussion on the Governor’s (emoluments, allowances and privileges)
Amendment Bill, 1988, opposition members, Mr. M.S. Gurupadaswamy (Janata)
and Mr. P. Upendra (T.D.), in the Rajya Sabha (on May 11, 1987) demanded the
abolition of the office of Governor which they charged was used by the ruling party
at the Centre to further its partisan interest140. The Akali Dal leader, Mr. Badal also
pleaded for the abolition of the institution of Governor141. Replying to a special
discussion on the recommendations of the Sarkaria commission in Trivandrum on
April 25,1988, Keral Chief Minister, E.K. Nayanar asserted that "the time has come
for the abolition of the post of Governor".142 Similarly, the West Bengal
Government in its response to the Sarkaria Commission’s questionnaire on the
Centre-State relations, opined that the post of Governor be abolished and in place of
the Governor alternative institutional arrangements be made to maintain the
channels of communication between the Centre and the States. The State go-
vernment said that if the post of the Governor had to be retained, he should be
allowed only some “symbolic functions” and he must act according to the advice of
the State council only.143 Mr. Mostafa Bin Qasim CPI (M) had also pleaded for the
office of the Governor, a legacy of the foreign rule to be replaced with an alternative

139
TDP Governor, Indian Express, editorial, February 7, 1987. The Andhra Pradesh Government has
pleaded for abolition of the office of Governor, in a memorandum on Centre-State relations. (Memo
to Sarkaria Panel AP wants Governors to go, Indian Express, May 16, 1985).
140
Abolish Governor’s office: Opposition, Indian Express, May 12, 1987.
141
Conclave for federal system, Indian Express, October 7, 1983.
142
Abolish Governor’s post: Nayanar, Indian Express, April 27, 1988. Also see Kerala for Scrapping
Governor’s post, Indian Express, June 16, 1988.
143
Governor’s post sought, Indian Express, August 8, 1984.

120
institution.144

It must be remembered that the demand for the abolition of the Governor is
not something new. Even in the past similar views had been expressed though on
account of different reasons. For instance, Mrs. Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, after
resigning as Governor of Maharashtra, expressed the opinion that the office of the
Governor was entirely useless and should be abolished. She felt that the only thing
that induced a person to accept a Governorship was the salary that the post carried.
She expressed her dissatisfaction with almost everything that the Governor and his
Raj Bhavan stood for.145 In the course of the Lok Sabha debate on April 11, 1969,
Vasudevan Nair and Ganesh Ghosh of CPI (M) urged for the abolition of the office.
On April 16, 1974, R.M. Karunanidhi, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, moved a
resolution in the Legislative Assembly for abolition of the post of the Governor.

However, the opposition demand for the abolition of Governor’s post seems
to be based on a misconception of the constitutional obligation of the Union to
States. It is the constitutional obligation of the Union to protect States at the time of
disorder like communal disturbances etc. The abolition of the post of Governor
would leave a void in the constitution. The Governor can play a useful role in aiding
and advising State Governments and in serving as a link between the administration
and the people, as well as with the Centre, in an open and constructive manner.
Quite some Governors have played such a role and their mediatory efforts have been
lauded by Chief Ministers and the people alike. To substantiate this argument, it is
necessary to examine the importance and utility of governor for the State as well as
Central Government.

Basically, there is an erroneous impression in general on the role and the

powers of a Governor. It is true that the Governor is appointed by the President and

144
Abolish Governor’s office: Opposition, Indian Express, May 12, 1987. Mr. Gurupadaswami,
opposition party leaders, also said in the Rajya Sabha on May 11, 1987 that “as long as the office of
governor was not abolished, no Supreme court, High Court Judge the Chief Election Commissioner
or bureaucrat should be appointed as a governor, as such an appointment lended to affect the
impartiality of a Governor. (See Abolish Governor’s office: Opposition, Indian Express, May 12,
1987).
145
The Times of India, November 22, 1965. Sri Prakasa states that two events have happened which
have brought the position of Governors very much to the fore. One is the resignation, more or less in
disgust, of Mrs. Vijaya lakshmi Pandit from the Governorship of Maharashtra, and the other
resignation of Mr. Ajit Jain from the Governership of Kerala in very peculiar circumstances. (See Sri
Prakasa, State Governors in India, Meenakshi Prakasham, Meerut, 1975, p. 69.)

121
holds office during the pleasure of the President. As the President acts in accordance
with the advice of the Union Cabinet, it is assumed that the Governor is an employee
and agent of the Centre and should consult the Union government before taking
decisions even in matters where the Governor has discretionary powers.

It is of interest to note here that apart from the considered views of the
constitutional experts and commissions of study, the Supreme Court specifically
went into the constitutional position of governorship. In Hargovind Pant v Dr.
Raghukul Tilak146, a Constitution Bench comprising five Judges of the Supreme
Court observed: "Every person appointed by the President is not necessarily an
employee of the Government of India. So also it is not material that the Governor
holds office during the pleasure of the President. It is a constitutional provision for
determination of the term of office of the Governor and it does not make the
Government of India an employer of the Governor. The Governor is the head of the
State and holds a high constitutional office which carries with it important
constitutional functions and duties and he cannot be regarded as an employee or
servant of the Government of India. His office is not subordinate or subservient to
the Government of India. He is not amenable to the directions of the Government of
India, nor is he accountable to them for the manner in which he carries out his
functions and duties. He is an independent constitutional office, which is not subject
to the control of the Government of India. He is constitutionally the head of the State
in whom is vested the executive power of the State".

In his monumental work, Constitutional Law of India, eminent jurist H.M.

Seervai147 said: "As the President acts on the advice of his Ministry, it may be
contended that if the Governor takes action contrary to the policy of the Union
Ministry, he would risk being removed from his post as Governor and therefore he is
likely to follow the advice of the Union Ministry. It is submitted that a responsible
Union Ministry would not advise, and would not be justified in advising, the
removal of a Governor because in the honest discharge of his duty, the Governor
takes action which does not fall in line with the policy of the Union Ministry. The
removal of the Governor under such circumstances would otherwise mean that the

146
AIR 1979, SC 1109.
147
Vol.3, Fourth Edition, 1996, page 3103

122
Union executive would effectively control the State executive, which is opposed to
the basic scheme of our federal Constitution".

One has to be clear about the role and constitutional position of the Governor
before finding fault with the action taken by Governor.

The Constituent Assembly started with various proposals, ranging from

direct election of Governor to selection of a person from a panel submitted by the
State legislature. The drafting committee finally accepted the proposal that the
Governor should be appointed by the President. When the draft articles came up for
discussion, members of the Constituent Assembly, most of them from the Congress
party, were alert to point out that an appointment by the President would mean an
appointment by the Union government and it would place the Governor inevitably
under the control of the ruling party at the Centre.

Biswanath Das (Congress, Orissa) was forthright: "If I were to have my

leaders in office continuously, if I were to have men like Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, I have absolutely no complaint... there is no knowing
which party will be in power (in the future). It may be that a party absolutely
different from that in the Centre may be functioning in office in a province. What
would then be the position? The Governor, who is the constitutional head under the
Act, has to be appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister of India, leader of
another party. I would have cited how the Governor, who was the agent of the
British Imperialism, had all along been attempting to smash my Party. What was
being done by the British Imperialism may also be repeated by the Party (at the
Centre)"148

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the chairman of the drafting committee, said: "Under
the parliamentary system of government, there are only two prerogatives which the
King or the Head of the State may exercise. One of them is the appointment of the
Prime Minister and the other is the dissolution of the House. With reference to the
Prime Minister, it is not possible to avoid vesting the discretion in the President." To
a query about the position of the Governor in a State, Ambedkar said: "The position
of the Governor is exactly the same as the position of the President."

148
Constituent Assembly Debates, May 31, 1948.

123
 Having decided to adopt the British system of Cabinet government not only
for the Union but also for the States, every State had to reflect the West minister
model with a Governor substituting the monarch. Thus in a parliamentary system the
Governor in normal times is the constitutional head, but he is also the repository of
power, to whom power comes back after a ministerial crisis. Even as a constitutional
figurehead he has to be active and vigilant because he may be required to exercise
his discretion and individual judgment at any time.

Part VI of the constitution deals with the powers of a Governor. The Chief
Minister and other ministers can remain in office as long as they enjoy the
Governor's pleasure. In the absence of Governor the Chief Minister would have
unfettered powers to remove any minister or ministers and he could do this on any
arbitrary or unjustified grounds.

The question also arises as to who will summon, prorogue and dissolve the
Assembly in the absence of a Governor? Of course, it could be argued that the Chief
Minister will discharge this function. But in that case there is a possibility that the
Chief Minister may not summon the legislature when he has the apprehension that
he may have lost the confidence of the majority in the Assembly. Secondly, if the
ruling party loses majority in the Assembly who will form an alternative
government? The Governor plays a crucial role when there is an unstable coalition
government. The Chief Minister acting as Governor may refuse to give assent to
those Bills which he does not like and he may issue ordinances which may make
him autocrat. ,

In this connection what Mr. V.K. Varadachari has said is worth mentioning.
According to him, "one part of Article 200 empowers the Governor to 'return a bill'
for reconsideration by the legislature. This ‘return’ is not made on the advice of the
ministry as several have argued. The return of the bill can be conveniently called “a
feed back” to employ an American terminology. A feed-back is a process through
which the policy makers are apprised of the shortcomings of their policy, its
loop-holes, its failures and its unintended by-products. Feed-backs then obligate the
Government to formulate new policies by modifying or repeating the existing pol-
icies or to once again go through the deliberate process or to confirm the existing
ones. No one is better suited to perform the feedback function than the Governor
who has with him adequate information through representations and public

124
memorial.”149

Vishnu Sahay, himself a Governor, writes: " From what I have heard, there
were occasion during the latter part of this period (referring to Pre-1967 period)
when the Governors did Intervene informally and with some success specially if the
proposals needing reconsideration was one in which a reluctant Chief Minister was
being dragooned into acquiescence by a rival clique in his party. On such occasions,
a little support from the Governor was not unwelcome.”150 Similarly K.M. Munshi,
who was the Governor of Uttar Pradesh between 1952 and 1957 said that during his
term, in some cases where he felt that minister’s decision required reconsideration,
he had asked the Chief Minister to refer it to the Council of Ministers.151

It is for the Governor to advise the Ministry, to warn them to suggest to them
alternative policies and actions and to ask for their consideration and reconsideration
of accepted policies and programmes.152 These duties of the Governor are similar to
the rights and duties of the British sovereign as a constitutional monarch. These
rights are, according to Bagehot, the right to be consulted, the right to encourage and
the right to warn. Bagehot had said, "A king of great sense and sagacity would want
no others".153 Pavate points out that 'When on June 15, 1970, the government sent
the State legislature (prevention of disqualification) ordinance, 1970, to remove the
disqualification attached to an M.L.A. on being appointed as a member or a
chairman of a corporate body, like the .Punjab Agricultural Marketing Board, Ware
Housing Corporation etc., he persuaded the Chief Minister to drop the' measure on
the ground that it was against sound public policy".154

In the judicial field, in the absence of a Governor, the Chief minister, being a
political man, may pardon or commute the sentence of a convicted person who
belongs to his party or is rich and influential. Again if there were no governors who
would report to the President that the State Government had failed to provide
effective administration in the State.

149
V.K. Varadachari, Governor in the Indian Constitution, Heritage Publishers, New Delhi, 1980, p.
29-30.
150
Indian Journal of Public Admn., Vol. XVI, p. 277.
151
K.M. Munshi. Pilgrimage to Freedom. Vol. 1, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, 1967, p. 271.
152
Constitution Assembly Debates, Part VIII, p. 546.
153
W. Bagehot, The English Constitution, World’s classics, O.U.P. 1928, p. 67.
154
Pavate, My Days as a Governor, quoted by V.K. Varadachari, op. cit., p. 28.

125
 Another function of the Governor is to recommend a panel of names for
appointment of judges of the High Court to the President. If there is no Governor,
the Chief Minister will pick men of his choice to sub serve his interests. Moreover,
the officials in the State Secretariat run the administration in the name of the Gov-
ernor. The Secretaries, Joint Secretaries, Deputy Secretaries or Assistant Secretaries
in the Secretariat are secretaries to Government and not to the Chief Minister or the
Ministers. In their service matters, the Governor is the final authority. If the Chief
Minister is given this power the secretaries and others can be intimidated by the
politician Chief Minister who can compel them to dance to his tune.

It is perhaps due to important functions which the governor performs, that

Mr. Ashoke K. Sen argues that "our constitution never meant the office of the
Governor to be merely ornamental. For the functioning of the constitutional
Government in a State, the Governor provides the king-pin on which the entire
machinery of the State must revolve. The Governor forms a stable link between the
Central Government and the State Government and embodies in his office the
machinery through which Government in a State my function in accordance with the
constitution.155 Similarly, Sri Prakasa says that "I do no regard the office of
Governor as at all the useless. He has to fulfil some very definite purposes which
have to be fulfilled in any case whether they are done so by a functionary called
Governor or by any other nomenclature. If Governor is abolised, one inclined to ask
as to how the purposes that Governor fulfils in as much as he is the watch-dog of the
interest of the Centre vis-a-vis the happenings in the state; and of the state vis-a-vis
the Centre, will be fulfiled. Then the Governor has to represent the State before
distinguished foreigners. Somebody will have to do it.”156

Reacting to the charge that the Governor is a luxury and the exorbitant
expenditure on him, Sri Prakasa observes: "they draw a salary which after the
deduction of income-tax is really not very much higher than that of a judge or a
Secretary. If, therefore, the Governorship is abolished and all the paraphernalia
maintained, then the saving to the public exchequer will be very little, if at all".157

155
Ashoke K. Sen, Role of Governors in the emerging pattern of Centre-State Relations, National
Publishing House, New Delhi, 1975.
156
Sri Prakasa, State Governors in India, Meenakshi Prakashan, Meerut, 1975.
157
Ibid., p. 12. Explaining the reasons why the office of Governor is regarded useless, Sri Prakasa
points out that formally a great deal of negotiations between the Centre and the State Government

126
 Highlighting the importance of Governor, Prof. N.R. Despande argued, "The
Governor was visualized to be a constitutional head, a sagacious councilor and
adviser to the ministry, one who can throw oil over troubled waters. Apart from
being a symbol of the State, the Governor could if he were active, by means of
getting into touch with opponents of the party in power, reconcile them to a good
number of measures and generally, by tours and other means, make the
administration run smoothly. In short, the Governor would act as a lubricator in the
Government of the States.”158

It can be said that if, the office of Governor is to be retained; the duties and
responsibilities of Governors should be clearly defined so that all may know what is
expected from them and how they are to conduct themselves. At the same time
impartiality on the part of Governor is also very essential and can be a great source
of strength. It can go a long way in making the State Governments have faith in and
trust their governors. Mr. K. Varadachari cites examples which show how the
non-partisan image of the Governor helps in critical situations. In Lucknow, it is
said Sarojini Naidu did much to comfort the Muslim community which was in a
State of trauma after the migration of most of the leaders to Pakistan. Padmaja
Naidu, as the Governor of West Bengal, is stated to have effectively supplemented
the efforts of the Rehabilitation Ministry. So did Akbar Hydari, who by his work in
integrating the Hill States and in getting the nine point agreement of Union signed
by representatives of Nagas, Considerably lighten the burden of the Central and
State Governments.159

Little wonder then that the Sarkaria Commission which thoroughly examined
the role of Governor in Centre-State Relations, turned down the demand made by

went through Governors. However, gradually, the centre started keeping direct relations with the
State Governments. Far from being consulted as to the persons who should constitute the ministers,
Governors are not even informed as to who are being thought of as ministers. Whatever Sri Prakasa
has said long back applies to a large extent to the present day circumstances. (See for details Sri
Prakasa, op. cit.).
158
N.R. Deshpandey, The governor in the Indian federation, in Essays on Indian Federalism, op. cit.,
p. 170. For details regarding this issue see Elayadom Gregory, Are Governors Necessory? Hitavada,
November 22, 1970; B.C. Rout, should the office of governors be abolished? Modern Review, Vol.
125, No. 3, March 1970.
159
Mr. Varadachari also cites two instances one of the West Bengal and another of Punjab, when the
speakers of Legislative Assemblies obstructed the legislative process and tried to paralyse the
administration. But the Governors played crucial role in resolving those issues. (See for details V.K.
Varadachari, op.cit).

127
the leaders of opposition parties and others for the abolition of the office of
Governor. Besides, it must be remembered that if the occupant of an office behaves
wrongly, it should not mean that the office itself has lost its utility. As long as we
have a parliamentary system of government it is very difficult to abolish the post of
Governor who is a constitutional head of State. If a Chief Minister is made the head
of the State, he is likely to become despotic. A Chief Minister, being a politician
cannot be the eyes and ears of the people with his partisan outlook.

Conclusion & Suggestions

In order to enable the Governor to successfully discharge his functions

under the Constitution, an agreed 'Code of Conduct' approved by the State
Governments, the Central Government, the Parliament and the State Legislatures
should be evolved. This code of conduct should first of all lay down 'norms and
principles’, which should be evolved. This 'Code of Conduct' should first of all lay
down certain 'norms and principles’, which should guide the exercise of the
Governor's 'discretion' and his powers which he is entitled to use and exercise on his
personal judgement.

The Governor's Role being not merely formal or ornamental there are
circumstances in which he might be called upon (and in fact recent experience in
the State has shown that he may frequently be so called upon) to exercise his own
judgement and in some situations the exercise of his judgement can be crucial
particularly when his functions relate to matters in which the Central Government
may be vitally concerned. It is, therefore, important that the Government must be
enabled to exercise his Constitutional functions with a clear understanding and on
the basis of principles which are accepted by the State Governments and the Central
Government and on the basis of agreed conventions.

Further, it is equally important that the Governor must act judiciously,

impartially and efficiently while exercising his discretion and personal judgement.
The Report of the special Study team of the Administrate Reforms Commission
raises four questions for the purpose of assuring that the Governor may properly
exercise his functions:

(i) questions relating to the appointment of Governor to ensure that persons of

the requisite caliber are appointed:

128
(ii) questions relating to the conditions, arrangements and procedures enabling
the Governors to perform their duties;

(iii) questions relating to the power and procedures for keeping the Centre
informed of happenings in the States;

(iv) questions relating to the clarification and need for extension of areas
involving the exercise of his own judgemet by the Governor.

As regards (i) above, there can be no doubt that person of high caliber and
quality must be appointed to fill up the high office of the Governor. Everything that
is necessary to find the best man for filling this office should done. In selecting the
person to be appointed as the Governor, the choice should not be confined to the
party in power at the centre and the field of selection should extend much beyond
the political arena.

Regarding (ii) above, the 'procedure for appointment of Governors should

be clearly laid down' and once laid down it should never be deviated from the like
the appointment of the judges of the High Courts. The prescribed procedure must
provide for consultation with the Chief Minister at the time of appointment of the
Governor. The conditions of appointment must also he laid-down and must assure a
fixed tenure for the Governor so that the Governor is not under the constant threat
of removal by the Central Government. The Constitution prescribes the term of five
years for the Governor but subject to his removal at any time by the President. The
procedure must ensure that a Governor should normally be allowed to function for
five years unless there are -overwhelming reasons for transferring him or removing
him.

The changes suggested by the Commission in Articles 200 and 201 seem
essential if the arbitrary action on the part of the Governors is to be checked. It is
necessary to invest the office of the Governor with the requisite independence of
action and to rid them of the bane of 'instructions' from the Central Government. It
is necessary to make him the Governor of the State in its full and proper sense and
to enable him to live up to his oath truthfully. His loyalty must be to the
Constitution and to none else and his commitment to the well-being of the people of
his State.

129
 He must command respect by his conduct. Only then any 'vice given by him
will be respected by the Council of Ministers and the Legislature. Where he finds
that a situation has arisen here the government of the State cannot be carried on in
accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, he must Report the same to the
President as contemplated by Article 356. This is also a requirement of the oath
taken by him viz., to "preserve protect and defend the Constitution". The Central
Government should also desist from undue interference with the State Governments
and should indeed respect the powers of the States. The State's powers, few they
are, should not be whittled down further. On the contrary, the effort should be to
preserve the federal nature of our Constitution. The interest of our nation is in
"cooperative federalism" and not in confrontational politics or politics of
domination.

The former Governor Karnataka Chief Minister, Mr. Ramakrishna Hegde,

presented a white paper in the Karnataka Assembly in the third week of January
1983 on the Role of the Governors and seriously alleged that the Governors have
always acted at the "instigation" of the ruling party at the centre, "dabbling" in
politics and thus becoming victims of "political perversion. This charge against the
Role of Governor is also proved in the preceding pages of this study.

It is submitted that during the President's Rule, the Governor really becomes
'function officio', and it is only by the President's specific order that he becomes an
Agent of the Centre. Even in normal times i.e. when the president's Rule has not
been imposed in a state, the Governor generally as a spokes person of the centre. It
seems that the Governor has now become a tool in the hands of the ruling party at
the centre to control the State Governments.

The Governor is supposed to be the Constitutional Head of a State. He is

dignified part of the Government. He is highly respected and is supposed to be a
non-partisan functionary. He is so a necessary and useful part so Parliamentary
system of government. But how for he would be useful and respected depends upon
himself- to what extent he makes himself useful, dignified and eon-controversial.

Hence to make the Role of the Governors really meaningful in centre-state

relations and for maintaining the principles and spirit of parliamentary government,
it is suggested that the exercise of 'discretionary powers' by the Governors should

130
be 'guided by the healthy and democratic conventions' which may grow from time
to time in the working of the Constitution.

The Governor should not only be neutral but also seem to be neutral. Much
depends upon the political integrity of the Governor. Be should not allow himself to
be misled by the vested interests. "A Governor can do a great deal of good if he is a
good Governor and be can do a great deal of mischief if he is a bad Governor
inspite of the very little power given to him under the Constitution."

He should not work against the State Government which represents the
popular will. So, if he stands against the wishes of the Ministry, it will be an
undemocratic Act. Such a Situation warrants a rethinking about his status and
position. The discretionary powers of the Governor should not lead to the
butchering of duly elected Governments, as it would hasten the death of democracy.

To conclude it can be submitted that it is necessary to invest the office of the

Governor with requisite independence of action and rid them of bane of
'instructions' from the Central Government. It is also necessary to make him the
Governor of the State in its full and proper sense and to enable him to live up to his
oath truthfully. His loyalty must be to the Constitution and to none else and his
commitment to the well being of the people of his State. He must command respect
by his conduct. Despite everything an ideal Governor need to act in caution.

The suggestions are as follows:

First, the verdict of the electorate should be respected. If the ruling party has
failed to secure a majority yet has emerged as a largest single party it cannot be put in
power. The Governor, in a situation as such, should first summon the leader of the
Opposition to get the know if he is in command of majority? If he is satisfied that the
opposition is in command of majority he will invite it to from the government. Only
after sounding the opposition and finding that it is incapable of forming a government
the claim of the largest single party can be entertained, and it can be set in power
subject to command of a majority support at the point of time of appointment and not
on consideration of coming to command such support on some future date. Command
of majority support, at the time of being put in power, is the quintessential principle,
which cannot be overlooked and overridden in any circumstances.

131
 Second, nod discrimination can be made between coalition existing before the
elections and one coming after it, Irrespective of the time factor, both have a locus
standi for being put in power, subject to commanding a majority support. To put a
coalition out of reckoning for power, which had come into existence after the
elections is extraneous to parliamentary principles, arbitrary, prejudicial and uncalled
for.

Third making a discrimination between party members and Independents is

grotesquely abuser and irrelevant because both category of members, in the face of
low, are full-fledged members and possess equal rights for the fact of being elected
and representing their constituencies. Non counting of Independents support, while
assessing the strength of the two sides, III accords with the democratic system. The
supports of all elected members, whether party men or Intendments, should be
counted in the assessment of strength of different groups and parties.

The judgment delivered in Bommai Vs Union of India categorically rejected

the philosophy invoked in deciding State of Rajasthan vs. Union of India. Justice
Ahmadi held, “Having noticed the nature of the federal structure under the
constitution, the possibility of different political parties ruling at the centre and in one
or more states cannot be ruled out. The constitution clearly permits it. Therefore, the
mere defeat of the ruling party at the centre cannot by itself entitle the newly elected
party which comes to power at the centre to advise the President to dissolve the
Assemblies of those states where the party in power is other than one is power at the
centre, even with a thumping majority, is no ground to hold that, a situation has arisen
in which the Government of the state cannot be carried on in accordance with the
provision of the constitution, which is the requirement for the exercise of power under
Article 356 of the constitution. To exercise power under the said provision and to
dissolve the state Assemblies solely on the ground of a newly elected party having
come to power at the centre with a sweeping majority would to say the least, betray
intolerance on the part of the central government clearly basing the exercise of power
under Article 356(1) on considerations extraneous to the said provision and therefore,
legally malafide.

From the above it is established that the judgment that was given in the State
of Rajasthan Vs. Union of India was erroneous and the one delivered in Bommai vs.
Union of India was correct and hence the dismissal of 18 state Governments, nine in

132
1977 and the same number in 1980 was wrong exercise of power under Article
356(1) of the Constitution.

The Governor is appointed by the Centre but is not its agent. A wrong
perception of his being so has gained currency, largely on account of many
Governors acting in a blatantly biased manner. A Governor is a constitutional
authority, who, derives his powers from the Constitution. He should be carrying
out his duties like a Judge on the basis of his own judgment and in accordance with
the provisions of the Constitution. He is not required to act on directions from the
Centre.160

The Governor working as an agent of the Central Government is the root

cause of the aberration coming in the working of the constitution. It sticks in the
gullet of the Indian system as a inconvenient fish bone and unless that is extricated
the elegance of the constitution is bound to suffer further making it to go beyond
recognition. The Supreme Court judgment in Bommai vs. Union of India is a trend
setter in the right direction and the skulduddery, which till now was made.

160
Seminar on "Role of Governors" Attended by Shri L.K. Advani, Retired General Sinha and Other
Governors at India Habitat Centre Auditorium(Friday, 23 July 2010).

133