Abstract
The Constitution of India is the supreme law of India. It frames fundamental political principles, procedures, practices, rights, powers, and duties of the government. All the powers and functions of the State Execution and Union Government are also mentioned in Constitution. In State Execution it consists of Chief Minister, the Council of Ministers and the Governor. Articles 153-167 of the Indian Constitution deal with issues pertaining to the country’s state governments. In this article a detailed appointment and powers of the Governor is given along with the articles. Also, few judicial pronouncements have been analyzed for a better conclusion.
Keywords- Governor, Appointment, Power, State Execution, Council of Minister
Introduction
State Execution has the same Parliamentary pattern as followed by the Union Government with the upper hand being given to the Union in certain matters. In State Execution it consists of Chief Minister, the Council of Ministers and the Governor. The Governor serves as the constitutional leader at the stage level as well as a liaison between the state government and the centre. He or she acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers, and all executive measures are carried out in his or her name. Articles 153-167 of the Indian Constitution deal with issues pertaining to the country’s state governments. Governor is both a titular or constitutional leader and an agent of the centre, as the union government appoints Governors in each state.
The Governor
According to Article 153 in the Constitution of India 1949, it is stated that every State needs to have a Governor. The Governor is the titular leader of a state, much as the President is the putative head of the republic. This implies he/she has powers and duties comparable to the President of India, but he/she acts at the state level, with the actual authority resting with the State Chief Minister and his/her council of ministers. Furthermore, the 7th Constitution Amendment Act of 1956 introduced a provision under Article 153 that allows the same individual to serve as Governor of two states at the same time. The Governor serves a five-year term.
Appointment and Powers of Governor
Under Article 155 of the Indian Constitution 1949 it states the appointment of the Governor, where it is mentioned that the Governor of a State will be appointed by President of the country by warrant under his hand and seal i.e., bearing his seal and signature also Article 156 contains details about his tenure and removal of the Governor. The Governor shall hold office for the duration of the President’s pleasure. The Governor may quit his position by writing beneath his hand, i.e., a written letter addressed to the President and signed by him. In line with the preceding provisions of this article, the Governor’s term of office shall be five years from the date he/she takes office, provided that the Governor shall continue to retain office until his/her successor takes office, quite apart from the expiration of his/her tenure. Therefore, for the appointment of the Governor few qualifications are required which is mention under Article 157 of the Indian Constitution 1949, where it is mentioned that he/she should be a citizen of India and also, he/she should complete 35 years of age. Now there are certain conditions along with the parliamentary qualification for the appointment of the Governor which is stated under Article 158 of Indian Constitution-
He/She should not be holding any office of profit.
He/She should not be a member of Parliament or any other State Legislature. However, if someone in these roles is named Governor, he or she will have to relinquish the post they previously held.
He/she is entitled to the allowances, emoluments, and privileges that the Parliament provides by law, and if these provisions are missing, he/she is entitled to them under Schedule II.
During his tenure, the above-mentioned perks, emoluments, and privileges would not be reduced. Furthermore, if he/she takes over two states, such expenditures will be split between them in line with the President’s decision.
In any respectful post that assigned person needs to take oath, similarly, the Governor also take Oath before entering his office is bound to do so before the Chief Justice of the High Court or the senior most judge, in the former’s absence. This is mentioned under Article 159 of the Indian Constitution. According to Articles 155 and 156 of Indian Constitution, the Governor is a President appointment who maintains office for as long as he continues to enjoy his pleasure. This effectively indicates that the Governor can serve for the whole five-year term if he continues to enjoy the President’s pleasure. The Article 74 states that, the President is required to act with the assistance and advice of the Council of Ministers. As a result, the President’s decision to dismiss the Governor is effectively the decision of the Centre. In the case of B.P. Singhal vs UOI (2010), the Hon’ble Court’s constitutional bench held that even though the Central Government holds the power to remove the Governor, they cannot do so arbitrarily and would have to prove the facts of the case and grounds for his/her removal. Thus, the Governor cannot be removed simply because the Union government has lost confidence in him/her. In Article 160 of Indian Constitution, the President believes the Governor is required to perform responsibilities not specifically stated in this chapter, the President may do so under this provision. As stated at the outset of this article, the Governor’s office, power, and responsibilities are comparable to those of the President. His/her abilities are detailed in four sections below.
Executive Power- The Governor has been given executive powers under Article 154(1), and he might choose to wield them directly or indirectly through his Council of Ministers.
As such, the Governor appoints key state officials such as the Chief Minister and Council of Ministers, the Chairman and members of the State Public Service Commission, the State Election Commissioner, the Advocate General, the Chief Justice of the High Court, district judges, and university vice chancellors.
According to Article 356, the Governor may suggest to the President the installation of a State Emergency, and during such an emergency, he or she has considerable administrative powers as the President’s agent.
He or she is in charge of the state administration, extending authority over the topics on the state list and deciding on the policies and portfolios of the different ministries.
Financial Power-
A money bill cannot be introduced in the state legislature without prior approval of the Governor.
The state Contingency Fund is at his/her disposal and he/she can make withdrawals out of it to meet unforeseen expenditures.
He/She makes sure that the Annual state budget is discussed and put before the State Legislature.
Legislative Power-
Both chambers of the Legislature can be summoned and prorogued by the Governor. He or she must ensure that the time between the two sessions of the homes is no more than six months.
Under Article 192, the Governor has the authority to disqualify any legislator who fails to comply with the conditions given under Article 191.
The Governor has to address the state legislature at the beginning of the first session every year and after the state assembly elections.
The Governor can hold a bill and send it to the President for his consideration. Other than this, the Governor can either give assent to a bill or withhold it or send it back for reconsideration (except for money bills).
Pardoning Power- According to Article 161, the Governor has the authority to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, and remissions of punishment, as well as suspend, remit, and commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence relating to matters under state executive power, with the exception of cases decided by a court martial. However, in instances where the death sentence has been imposed, the Governor cannot offer a pardon. According to the Constitution, the judiciary should not encroach upon the powers of the executive. However, in certain cases this has been seen.
Judicial Pronouncement
In the case B.P. Singhal VS Union of India (2010), the events that led to this lawsuit revolved around the dismissal of the Governors of Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana, and Goa following the 14th Lok Sabha elections. The writ petition was filed by a former member of Parliament, B.P. Singhal and the matter was referred to a five-judge constitution bench consisting of the then Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justices S.H. Kapadia, R.V. Raveendran, B. Sudershan Reddy and P. Sathasivam. Quoting Justice Raveendran, “What Article 156 (1) of the Constitution dispenses with, is the need to assign reasons or the need to give notice, but the need to act fairly and reasonably cannot be dispensed with by Article 156(1).” The panel underlined that the President’s exercise of powers under Article 156(1) should not be arbitrary. If the President withdraws his/her pleasure, the court will presume that it is for compelling reasons, and if the aggrieved individual is unable to provide mala fide reasons for his/her removal, the court will not intervene. However, if the aforementioned individual can demonstrate that there was a malicious purpose behind his/her removal, the court will order the Union government to present records/material to convince itself that the withdrawal of enjoyment was for good and compelling grounds. The facts of the case would determine what constituted good and persuasive grounds. As a result, the judiciary will not intervene unless the administration presents a compelling case based on malafide intents. In short, the Court stated that, while the Union and the President had the authority to remove the Governor, it could not be done arbitrarily or in bad faith, even if his/her policies and beliefs differed from those of the Union Government.
In the case of Epuru Sudhakar & Anr. v. Govt. of AP & Ors., the question of whether the Governor’s pardoning power is susceptible to judicial scrutiny arose. The judgement of the then-Andhra Pradesh Governor, Sushil Kumar Shinde, was overturned by the Supreme Court. The Governor had recommended that a Congress activist’s sentence be reduced in connection with the murder of two people, one of whom was a TDP activist. The division bench, comprised of Justices S.H. Kapadia and Arijit Pasayat, specifically said that the exercise of the pardoning authority must be done in accordance with the Rule of Law. “Rule of Law is the basis for evaluation of all decisions (by the court) … That rule cannot be compromised on the grounds of political expediency. To go by such considerations would be subversive of the fundamental principles of the Rule of Law and it would amount to setting a dangerous precedent,” the bench warned. Justice Kapadia, while concurring with the main ruling delivered by Justice Pasayat, sought to remind “exercise of executive clemency is a matter of discretion and yet subject to certain standards. It is not a matter of privilege. It is a matter of performance of official duty… the power of executive clemency is not only for the benefit of the convict but while exercising such a power the President or the Governor as the case may be, has to keep in mind the effect of his decision on the family of the victims, the society as a whole and the precedent it sets for the future.”
He also said “An undue exercise of this power is to be deplored. Considerations of religion, caste or political loyalty are fraught with discrimination”. Thus, this judgment gave a final conclusion that the settled position of law that exercise or non-exercise of the pardoning power by the Governor would not be immune from judicial review.
Conclusion
The structure of the Indian government is Quasi-Federal in character. The President governs on a national scale, whereas the Governor governs on a state scale. The Governor, as the titular leader, has little actual power, although he does have certain significant discretionary tasks. This division of authority between the Governor and the Chief Minister helps to preserve equilibrium in a state while also keeping a check on the operation of particular machinery.
