DAW 9th May 2026, Mains Answer Writting 2027

DAW 9th May 2026, Mains Answer Writting 2027

Question

Discuss the constitutional position of the Governor in the Indian parliamentary system. How far is the office expected to function as a neutral constitutional authority? (15 marks 250 Words)

Model Answer

Approach:

  • Introduction

  • Introduce the Governor as the constitutional head of the State and an important link between the Centre and the States in India’s parliamentary-federal system.

  • Mention that the Constitution expects the Governor to function as a politically neutral authority acting on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, though recent controversies have raised concerns regarding neutrality.

  • Body

  • Discuss the constitutional position, powers, and discretionary role of the Governor under the parliamentary system.

  • Explain the expectation of neutrality with reference to constitutional morality, cooperative federalism, and Supreme Court judgments.

  • Highlight recent controversies such as delay in assent to Bills, disputes with opposition-ruled States, and controversies in hung assemblies.

  • Mention reasons behind such conflicts and add reforms suggested by the Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions, including politically neutral appointments, codification of conventions, and clear limits on discretionary powers.

  • Conclusion

  • Conclude that while the Governor is expected to act as a neutral constitutional authority, recurring controversies have raised concerns regarding politicisation of the office.

  • Emphasise that constitutional restraint, political neutrality, and cooperative federalism are essential to preserve the credibility and dignity of the Governor’s office.

Introduction The Governor occupies a significant position in India’s parliamentary-federal system as the constitutional head of the State under Articles 153 to 162 of the Constitution. The Constitution envisages the Governor as a politically neutral constitutional authority who acts as a link between the Centre and the States and upholds constitutional morality and cooperative federalism. Body Constitutional Position of the Governor

  • Constitutional Head of the State

  • Article 153 provides for a Governor for each State, while Article 154 vests the executive power of the State in the Governor.

  • The Governor functions as the nominal or constitutional head of the State, similar to the President at the Union level.

  • Parliamentary Nature of the Office

  • Article 163 states that the Governor ordinarily acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in matters where the Constitution specifically grants discretion.

  • This reflects the parliamentary system adopted in India, where elected representatives remain accountable to the legislature.

  • Governor as a Link Between Centre and State

  • The Governor is appointed by the President under Article 155 and holds office during the pleasure of the President under Article 156.

  • Therefore, the office acts as an important constitutional link between the Union and the State governments.

  • Governors also play a key role during constitutional crises by reporting to the President under Article 356.

  • Legislative Powers

  • The Governor summons and prorogues the State Legislature under Article 174 and addresses it under Article 176.

  • Under Article 200, the Governor may:

  • give assent to a Bill,

  • withhold assent,

  • return the Bill for reconsideration, or

  • reserve the Bill for the President.

  • The Governor can also promulgate ordinances under Article 213 when the Legislature is not in session.

  • Discretionary Powers

  • The Constitution grants certain discretionary powers to the Governor.

  • These include:

  • inviting a party to form government in a hung assembly,

  • reserving Bills for the President,

  • reporting constitutional breakdown under Article 356, and

  • seeking a floor test where majority support is doubtful.

Governor as a Neutral Constitutional Authority Constitutional Expectation of Neutrality

  • The Constitution envisages the Governor as a politically neutral constitutional authority within India’s parliamentary-federal system.

  • Under Article 163, the Governor is ordinarily expected to act on the aid and advice of the elected Council of Ministers except in limited discretionary situations.

  • The office is intended to uphold:

  • constitutional morality,

  • democratic accountability,

  • parliamentary democracy, and

  • cooperative federalism.

  • During Constituent Assembly debates, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar clarified that the Governor is not expected to function as an agent of the Union government or as an independent political executive.

Areas Where Neutrality is Expected

  • The Governor is expected to act impartially in matters such as:

  • government formation in hung assemblies,

  • summoning and proroguing the legislature,

  • assent to Bills under Article 200,

  • recommendation of President’s Rule under Article 356, and

  • calling for floor tests to determine majority support.

  • The Governor is also expected to avoid unnecessary interference in the functioning of elected State governments.

Judicial Interpretation of Neutrality

  • Kameshwar Singh Case (1952)

  • This was among the earliest cases dealing with Articles 200 and 201 relating to assent to Bills.

  • The Supreme Court clarified the constitutional procedure regarding assent, withholding assent, and reservation of Bills for the President.

  • The judgment established the procedural framework governing gubernatorial powers over Bills.

  • Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974)

  • The Supreme Court ruled that the Governor acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers except in limited constitutional situations.

  • The judgment rejected the idea that the Governor possesses independent executive authority.

  • It reinforced Cabinet responsibility and parliamentary democracy.

  • S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

  • The Court limited arbitrary use of Article 356 and strengthened the principle of federalism.

  • It held that majority support must ordinarily be tested on the floor of the House.

  • Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016)

  • The Court held that the Governor cannot independently summon or advance Assembly sessions without ministerial advice.

  • It ruled that the Governor cannot interfere in legislative functioning or act as an “ombudsman” of the legislature.

  • The Court also clarified that the Governor has no role in disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule.

  • Tamil Nadu Governor Case and Presidential Reference (2025)

  • The Supreme Court held that Governors cannot indefinitely delay assent to Bills.

  • It criticised prolonged and unexplained delays as inconsistent with constitutional governance.

  • However, in the Presidential Reference under Article 143, the Court clarified that timelines cannot be judicially imposed in a manner that rewrites the Constitution.

  • The Court maintained that although the Governor has limited discretion under Article 200, such discretion cannot become arbitrary or politically motivated

Recent Controversies Related to the Governor’s Office

  • Delay in Assent to Bills

  • In recent years, Governors have been criticised for delaying assent to Bills passed by State Legislatures.

  • The Tamil Nadu Governor’s delay in granting assent to several Bills led to a major constitutional controversy.

  • In 2025, the Supreme Court held that Governors cannot indefinitely delay action on Bills, as such delays undermine parliamentary democracy and the democratic mandate of elected governments.

  • The judgment strengthened the principles of constitutional accountability and cooperative federalism.

  • Conflicts with Opposition-Ruled States

  • States such as Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Punjab, West Bengal, and Karnataka have witnessed repeated confrontations between Governors and elected governments.

  • Disputes have emerged over summoning of Assemblies, public criticism of governments, alteration of speeches, and delay in approving Bills.

  • Such controversies have raised concerns regarding the erosion of constitutional neutrality and cooperative federalism.

  • Government Formation and Hung Assemblies

  • Controversies have also arisen regarding the Governor’s discretionary powers during government formation in hung assemblies.

  • The 2018 Karnataka crisis witnessed criticism after the Governor invited the single-largest party to form the government despite a post-poll coalition claiming majority support.

  • Similar controversies emerged in Goa (2017), Manipur (2017), and Maharashtra (2019), where gubernatorial discretion became a subject of judicial scrutiny.

  • Recently, the Tamil Nadu political situation involving TVK and Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar again revived debate regarding whether Governors can insist on proof of majority before inviting a party to form the government.

  • University Administration Disputes

  • Governors, acting as Chancellors of State universities, have clashed with State governments over appointments and university administration.

  • Kerala and Tamil Nadu witnessed major disputes regarding the appointment of Vice-Chancellors and control over higher education institutions.

  • Critics argue that such interventions expand the Governor’s role beyond constitutional intent.

  • Allegations of Political Partisanship

  • Many Governors are former politicians or individuals associated with ruling political parties.

  • This has led to allegations that some Governors act as political agents of the Union government rather than neutral constitutional authorities.

  • Such perceptions weaken federal trust and democratic legitimacy.

Reasons Behind Recurring Controversies

  • Structural Factors

  • One major reason behind recurring controversies is that the appointment and removal of Governors are controlled by the Union government.

  • Since Governors hold office during the pleasure of the President, they do not enjoy complete security of tenure.

  • This creates a perception that Governors may act in accordance with the interests of the Union government rather than maintaining complete neutrality.

  • Additionally, Article 200 does not prescribe any clear timeline within which the Governor must act on Bills passed by the Legislature.

  • The absence of constitutional clarity regarding timelines has enabled prolonged delays and discretionary misuse in some cases.

  • The Constitution also grants Governors certain discretionary powers without clearly defining their precise scope, thereby creating ambiguity and scope for conflicting interpretations.

  • Political Factors

  • The rise of coalition politics and competitive federalism has significantly increased tensions between the Union and State governments.

  • Ideological and political differences between governments at the Centre and in the States often intensify conflicts involving Governors.

  • In politically sensitive situations, Governors are sometimes perceived to be instruments of political management rather than neutral constitutional authorities.

  • Frequent political competition and electoral rivalries have further contributed to the politicisation of the office.

  • Consequently, the office of the Governor has increasingly become a site of political contestation instead of remaining a constitutional safeguard.

  • Constitutional Ambiguities

  • The Constitution does not clearly define the exact scope and limits of discretionary powers available to Governors.

  • Terms such as “discretion” and “satisfaction” have often been interpreted differently by political actors and constitutional authorities.

  • India also lacks codified constitutional conventions similar to the Westminster model, where many practices are guided by long-established political norms.

  • In the absence of clear conventions and statutory guidelines, Governors sometimes exercise powers in a manner that generates political and constitutional disputes.

  • This ambiguity has resulted in repeated judicial interventions to clarify constitutional boundaries.

Way Forward

  • Codification of Constitutional Conventions

  • Constitutional conventions relating to the conduct and powers of Governors should be codified to reduce ambiguity and misuse of discretionary powers.

  • Clear guidelines should be framed regarding government formation, reservation of Bills, and use of Article 356.

  • Politically Neutral Appointments

  • In line with the recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission, Governors should be politically neutral persons who function as impartial constitutional authorities.

  • Active politicians should generally not be appointed as Governors in order to preserve the neutrality and credibility of the office.

  • Consultation with the Chief Minister before appointment can strengthen cooperative federalism and trust between the Centre and the States.

  • Reform of Discretionary Powers

  • The Sarkaria Commission stressed that discretionary powers should be exercised sparingly and strictly within constitutional limits.

  • The Punchhi Commission also recommended clear constitutional guidelines regarding discretionary powers, especially in matters such as:

  • government formation in hung assemblies,

  • reservation of Bills, and

  • recommendation of President’s Rule.

  • Transparent and limited use of discretion would reduce political controversies and constitutional conflicts.

  • Timely Assent to Bills

  • The Punchhi Commission recommended reasonable timelines for assent to Bills in order to prevent indefinite delays in legislative functioning.

  • Prescribing clear timelines would strengthen parliamentary democracy and ensure respect for the mandate of elected governments.

  • Ensuring Stability and Independence

  • The Punchhi Commission recommended a fixed tenure of five years for Governors to ensure greater independence and stability in office.

  • Arbitrary removal of Governors should be avoided except in exceptional circumstances.

  • Strengthening Cooperative Federalism

  • Governors should avoid public confrontation with elected governments and function with restraint, dignity, and constitutional propriety.

  • The office of Governor should strengthen cooperative federalism rather than become a source of political conflict.

  • Constitutional morality, democratic accountability, and respect for the mandate of elected governments should guide gubernatorial conduct.

Conclusion

The Governor occupies a crucial position in India’s parliamentary-federal framework as a constitutional link between the Centre and the States. Although the Constitution envisages the office as politically neutral and bound by the aid and advice of the elected government, repeated controversies have highlighted concerns regarding politicisation and misuse of discretionary powers. Recent judicial interventions and recommendations of various commissions have sought to restore constitutional balance by emphasising constitutional morality, federalism, and democratic accountability. Therefore, preserving the dignity and credibility of the Governor’s office requires political neutrality, constitutional restraint, respect for the democratic mandate, and a stronger commitment to cooperative federalism.