On 17.01.2025, while taking up petitions filed by the TN State Government against the Governor, the Supreme Court of India is reported to have urged the Governor for a resolution of the continuing stalemate with the State government over the appointment of V-Cs in major State Universities in one week, suggesting that the Court would otherwise decide the issue.
While we celebrate the completion of 75 years of adopting the Constitution of India, is the status of Governor in the Constitutional scheme not so clear yet? The Supreme Court has repeatedly reprimanded the State Governors on earlier occasions and showed them their place as ‘the symbolic head’ under the cabinet system of the Government that we have adopted.
In February 2023 when the Council of Ministers advised the Punjab Governor to summon the House for the budget session, the Governor blatantly refused to do so and stated that he had sought legal advice on whether he should summon the House. When the State Government moved the Supreme Court, it was held that ‘there was no occasion to seek legal advice on whether or not the Budget Session of the Legislative Assembly should be convened’ and that ‘the Governor was plainly bound by the advice tendered to him by the Council of Ministers’ and passed a detailed order holding that: “In the present case, the Governor was … advised by the Council of Ministers to convene the Budget Session, at the behest of a government which has been duly elected in the general election. Plainly, the Governor was duty bound to do so.” (judgment dated 28.02.2023 in State of Punjab Vs Secretary to Governor reported in 2024 (1) SCC 407). Later that year, the Governor almost vetoed the session of the Punjab legislative assembly by refusing to grant assent to the bills passed by the House stating that the assembly session was not valid in the eyes of law. When the State Government challenged this before the Supreme Court, the Court concluded that the Governor must proceed to take a decision on the Bills on the basis that the sitting of the House was constitutionally valid and that casting doubt on the validity of the session of the House is not a constitutional option open to the Governor. In more than one place in the judgment, the Court observed that India did not follow a presidential form of Government and the Governor was only a ‘titular head of the State’. (Judgment dated 10.11.2023 in State of Punjab Vs Principal Secretary to Governor and another, reported in 2024 (1) SCC 384).
In 2016, the Arunachal Pradesh Governor advanced the legislative assembly session unilaterally acceding to the request of the BJP and the dissident INC MLAs to vote on a resolution seeking removal of the Speaker of the House, and further declared that the Deputy Speaker (who was a dissident INC MLA) would chair the session. The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Governor and pointed out that ‘It is not for the Governor to schedule the functioning of the Assembly. It is also not in the Governor’s domain, to schedule the agenda of the House. The Governor has no role with reference to the ongoings in the Assembly. The Governor must keep away, from all that goes on, within the House.’ (In the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 13.07.2016 in Nabam Rebia Vs Deputy Speaker, reported in 2016(8) SCC 1).
Similarly, in April 2023 when the State of Telangana rushed to the Supreme Court complaining that the Governor kept several important bills pending without any further action, the Supreme Court pointed out that ‘the expression “as soon as possible” has significant constitutional content and must be borne in mind by constitutional authorities.’ referring to the duty cast upon the Governor under the Constitution when bills were sent to him/her for his/her assent. (order dated 24.04.2023 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 333/2023).
In March 2024, when Governor Mr. R.N Ravi refused to administer oath of office to MLA Mr. Ponmudy citing the legislator’s conviction in a disproportionate assets case which had been stayed by the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of India was reported to have observed that “we are seriously concerned about the conduct of the Governor in this case…When a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court stayed the conviction …, the Governor had no business to tell us that the suspension order did not wipe out the conviction.” Soon thereafter, the Governor administered the oath of office to the Education Minister and the petition was therefore closed.
Similarly, when Governor Mr. R.N Ravi referred to the President of India the State cabinet resolution for granting of remission to Perarivalan, the Supreme Court declared that ‘The Governor occupies the position of the head of the executive in the State but it is virtually the Council of Ministers in each State that carries on the executive Government’ and further pointed out that ‘Wherever the Constitution requires the satisfaction of the Governor for the exercise of any power or function, it is the satisfaction of the Council of Ministers on whose aid and advice the Governor generally exercises all his powers and functions.’ (judgment of the Supreme Court dated 18.05.2022 in A.G. Perarivalan Vs the State reported in 2022 CrLJ 2660).
The above examples are just illustrative of the several judgments that the Constitutional Courts have passed clarifying the role of the Governor under the Indian Constitution.
Should the Governors continue to suffer adverse orders from the Supreme Court of India at the expense of the public exchequer?
The Author of this Article Adv. NirmalKumar Mohandoss is practicing before the Madras High Court. Available for comments at nirmalkumar.m.law@gmail.com.
