Powers of the Governor

Powers of the Governor

Powers of the Governor

Like the President of India, the Governor of a state has certain executive, legislative and judicial powers. He or she also possesses certain discretionary or emergency powers. But, unlike the President, the Governor does not have any diplomatic or military powers.

Executive powers

  • The Governor has the power to appoint the Council of Ministers including the Chief Minister of the state, the Advocate General and the members of the State Public Service Commission. However, the Governor cannot remove the members of the State Public Service Commission as they can only be removed by an order of the President.
  • The Governor is consulted by the President in the appointment of the Judges of the state High Court.
  • The Governor appoints Judges of the District Courts.
  • In case the Governor feels that the Anglo-Indian community has not been adequately represented in the Vidhan Sabha, he or she can nominate one member of the community to the Legislative Assembly of the state.
  • In all the states where a bicameral legislature is present, the Governor has a right to nominate the members, who are “persons having special knowledge or practical experience in matters such as literature, science, art, co-operative movement and social service”, to the Legislative Council.

Legislative Powers

  • As the Governor is said to be a part of the State Legislature, he has the right of addressing and sending messages, summoning, deferring and dissolving the State Legislature, just like the President has, in respect to the Parliament. Although these are formal powers, in reality, the Governor must be guided by the Chief Minister and his Council of Ministers before making such decisions.
  • The Governor inaugurates the state legislature and the first session of each year, by addressing the Assembly, outlining the new administrative policies of the ruling government.
  • The Governor lays before the State Legislature, the annual financial statement and also makes demands for grants and recommendation of ‘Money Bills’.
  • The Governor constitutes the State Finance Commission. He also holds the power to make advances out of the Contingency Fund of the State in the case of any unforeseen circumstances.
  • All bills passed by the Legislative Assembly become a law, only after the Governor approves them. In case it is not a money bill, the Governor holds the right to send it back to the Vidhan Sabha for reconsideration. But if Vidhan Sabha sends back the Bill to the Governor the second time, then he has to sign it.
  • The Governor has the power to promulgate an ordinance when the Legislative Assembly is not in session, and a law has to be brought into effect immediately. However, the ordinance is presented in the state legislature in the next session, and remains operative for a total of six weeks, unless it is approved by the legislature.

Judicial Powers

  • The Governor can grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remission of punishments. He can also suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of an offence against the law.
  • The Governor is consulted by the President in the appointment of the Chief Justice to the High Court of that particular state.

Emergency Powers

  • In case no political party bags a majority in the Vidhan Sabha of the state, the Governor holds the power to use his discretion to select the Chief Minister.
  • The Governor informs the President in an official report, of a particular emergency arisen in the state, and imposes ‘President’s Rule’ on the behalf of the President. The Governor, in such circumstances, over rides the advice or functions of the Council of Ministers, and directs upon himself, the workings of the state.
  • The powers of the Lieutenant Governor of a union-territory are equivalent to the powers of a Governor of a state in India. Both are appointed by the President of India for a term of 5 years.

Note: On the issue of appointment of governor, Sarkaria commission made important recommendations:

  • The Governor should be eminent in some walk of life and from outside the state. He should be a detached figure without intense political links or should not have taken part in politics in recent past. Besides, he should not be a member of the ruling party.
  • He should be appointed after effective consultations with the state Chief Minister and Vice President and Speaker of the Lok Sabha should be consulted by the PM before his selection.
  • As far as possible, the governor should enjoy the term of five years.
  • He should be removed before his tenure only on the grounds as mentioned in the constitution or if aspersions are cast on his morality, dignity, constitutional propriety, etc.
  • In the process of removal, state government may be informed and consulted.

Impact of new economic and development policies on Federalism:

In 1991, India brought in some significant economic reforms in order to overcome a severe crisis and to align itself to the neo-liberal conditions as suggested by the World Bank and  the WTO allegedly on behest of the developed nations. India thus liberalized and opened its economy to the world by removing strict government barriers, rules and regulations and easing the norms for foreign investment in the country. This reform led to substantial decentralization of powers and functions with larger decision-making power to the state governments in bringing in the investments to their respective states. This was a major boost of investments to the states, and some of the states exploited the opportunity to the maximum and brought in investments to their own states. However, things changed, the economic reforms did not spill over and it could not bring in the changes for which it was intended. Down the line, major economic reforms could not be brought in because of the reluctance of many state governments. It seems that there is an organic linkage between federalism and growth of modern-market economy. According to some scholars, in 1990's India experienced de facto, not de jure, decentralization of its policy management. This decentralization was not carried out in planned or systematic manner. Another impact of this neo-liberal policy combined with the coalition politics of 1990s is that the federal relations among states became more intense and competitive.

Impact of state government on centre’s policy:

There are also other instances where the states have played de facto role in determining the decision of the Centre on foreign policy of Government of India. For instance, the state of Tamil Nadu has very often been directing the Central government on how it should maintain relations with the neighbouring country of Sri Lanka. The legislative assembly of the State of Tamil Nadu has even passed resolutions dictating on its own terms for the Indo-Sri Lanka relations Recently because of the stand taken by the Government and political parties of Tamil Nadu, the Prime Minister of India had to cancel his participation in an important meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Governments Meeting (CHOGM) in Sri Lanka. As far as the river water sharing agreement with Bangladesh is concerned, the government of West Bengal has its own stand. In the issue of sharing the water of Teesta River, the action of West Bengal government embarrassed the Government of India recently. There are various other instances where the states have played a role in influencing the foreign policy matters. States indirectly with international borders have always had a say in foreign policy matter either directly or

Impact of Neo-liberal Economic Policies:

Coming back to the impact of the neo-liberal economic policies on the Centre-State relations, it is important to highlight that such policies have created growth and development of numerous new central agencies and regulatory bodies in order to boost the liberalized market economy, Some of the pan-India central agencies like the Competition Commission of India, the Securities and Exchange Board of India, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India, the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, etc. have started to play important roles and all these have far reaching federal implications. In addition to this, the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC) has recommended, that for the purpose of carrying out the objectives set out in Articles 301, 302, 303 and 304 of the Constitution, and for other purposes relating to needs and requirements of inter-State trade and commerce and to eliminate barriers preventing them, the Parliament should by law constitute an authority called as the 'Interstate Trade and Commerce Commission' (ITCC) under the ministry of Industry and Commerce.

  • While the neo-liberal economic policies have had made significant impact on the Centre-State relations, developmental issues are also increasingly tend to impact this relationship.
  • These development issues broadly cover a wide range of issues pertaining to governance and service delivery of some of the major areas of public concern-including agriculture, social welfare, education, health, family planning, rural development etc, most of these are under either the state jurisdiction or under Concurrent list as per the Constitution.
  • However, due to lack of sufficient funds and expertise, the states are not taking much initiative in these major areas of concern.
  • Though it is in the hands of the state governments to take initiative, they tend to look at the centre for directions in these matters. Taking Education, for example, it was initially under State list and then brought to the Concurrent list by the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution in 1976.
  • And since then all major legislative and policy decisions involving the field of Education has been made by the Central Government. Even in the case of subject of Agriculture, all major policy initiatives have been taken by the Centre.
  • The Centre is thus playing a dominant role in the areas of state concern.
  • It has brought in several major policies and legislations in the field of agriculture, social welfare, health care, family planning, education, housing, rural development, etc.
  • All these areas have been covered by the central planning, and under one or the other centrally sponsored schemes, all these factors have soured the Centre-State relationship.
  • All these acts by the Centre have eroded the responsibility and initiative of the states, even their constitutional accountability has been diminished.
  • The more the centre forms policies on the state subjects, the more damaging effect it has on the centre-state federal structure.
  • This is so because majority of these schemes were formed without the consultation of the state governments, and their views were not sought while framing the guidelines for their implementation.
  • Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State recommended that the Central schemes should be kept to a minimum and there should be maximum decentralization of plan formulation.
  • Rather than decreasing, the Centre continued to increase the centrally sponsored schemes with clear disregard to the federal system.