🏛️ Governor vs State Government: A Structural Friction

The Governor is the nominal executive head of the state, appointed by the President of India. Constitutionally, they are expected to function based on the aid and advice of the elected State Cabinet. However, in practice, this arrangement often becomes a source of confrontation—especially in politically polarized states.

The recent row in Kerala reflects a larger pattern of power struggle between centrally appointed Governors and elected state governments. Such tensions raise serious concerns about the integrity of cooperative federalism.

📘 Constitutional Position of the Governor

• The Constitution (Articles 153–162) provides the framework for the Governor’s appointment, powers, and responsibilities within the state structure.
• As per Article 163, the Governor must follow the advice of the Council of Ministers, except in matters where the Constitution gives them discretionary power.
• Dr. B.R. Ambedkar clearly stated that the Governor is not meant to function independently, but must act under the guidance of the elected government.
• Article 156 states that the Governor holds office at the pleasure of the President, raising concerns over possible central overreach.

⚖️ Flashpoints: Areas of Frequent Conflict

• Delays in granting assent to bills have become common, despite Article 200 offering only four options—assent, withhold, return (if not a money bill), or reserve for the President.
• During periods of political crisis (e.g., Maharashtra 2019), Governors have been accused of using discretionary powers to delay assembly sessions or manipulate trust votes.
• In states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala, disputes have arisen over the unilateral appointment of Vice-Chancellors, bypassing state recommendations.
• The display of ideological symbols such as Bharat Mata in official functions has sparked debate over the erosion of India’s secular institutional identity.

🧾 Key Judicial Interventions

• S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): Reinforced that federalism is part of the Constitution’s basic structure and curbed misuse of Article 356.
• Nabam Rebia Case (2016): Held that the Governor cannot summon or dissolve the Assembly without Cabinet advice if the Chief Minister has majority support.
• The Supreme Court has frequently criticized Governors for holding back state legislation, undermining the spirit of federal governance.

📉 Consequences of Governor–State Discord

• Such conflicts weaken the foundation of intergovernmental trust, especially when the Centre and State are ruled by opposing parties.
• Prolonged delays in legislative assent or administrative action can lead to governance paralysis, stalling development and welfare policies.
• Interference from the Governor may undermine the authority of democratically elected governments, thereby eroding people’s faith in constitutional democracy.
• The Governor’s office is increasingly seen as politically aligned with the Centre, compromising its neutrality and credibility.

🔧 The Path Forward: Institutional Reforms

• The Punchhi Commission (2010) recommended a fixed five-year tenure for Governors and a Code of Conduct to clearly define the limits of their role.
• A bipartisan or collegium-based appointment process could help minimize political interference in selecting Governors.
• Enforcing time-bound clearance of bills through constitutional amendments may prevent legislative deadlock.
• There is a need to legally clarify the scope of discretionary powers to eliminate ambiguity and potential misuse.

🧭 Conclusion

The office of the Governor was never intended to be a center of political friction. It is meant to serve as a neutral constitutional link between the Union and State governments.

Recurrent confrontations, like the one seen in Kerala, underscore the need to preserve constitutional propriety and promote a culture of cooperative federalism. Strengthening this institution through reforms and restraint is essential to ensure balance in India’s federal structure.