Free Sample essay on the Governor of India

The machinery of government in the States is organised on the same pattern as that of the Union Government. Hence, in the light of our discussion on the machinery of the Union Government, the task of analysing the organisation and working of the State Government becomes comparatively easy.

As in the Union, the government in the State also is organised on the parliamentary model. The Head of the State is called the Governor who is the constitutional head of the State as the President is for the whole of India. The Chief of the State Government is called the Chief Minister who is the counterpart in the State, of the Prime Minister of India.

There is a Council of Ministers for each of the States as in the Union. The organisation of the State Legislature is also more or less on the model of the Indian Parliament. In the judicial field, the High Courts, for all practical purposes, occupies the same position within the State as the Supreme Court does for the whole of India.

Thus, the State Government is more or less a true copy of the Union Government within the jurisdiction of each State; this helps the States to draw examples and inspiration from the working of the Union government in almost every field of activity.

The executive power of the State is vested in a Governor who is appointed by the President and who holds office during the pleasure of the President.

The vesting of the entire executive power of the State in the Governor shows that he occupies the same constitutional position within the State as the President does with respect to the Government of India. Normally, the Governor holds office for a period of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office.

The qualifications for appointment as a Governor are simple and few. He should be a citizen of India and must have completed the age of 35 years. The Governor cannot be a member of either House of Parliament or of a State Legislature.

Nor can he hold any other office of profit. He is entitled to a free official residence, a regular monthly salary and other allowances. At present, his salary is fixed at Rs. 35,000 per month. His salary and allowances cannot be reduced during his term of office.

These are charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State and, such, are non-votable. Before entering upon his office, the Governor has to make and subscribe, in the presence of the Chief Justice of the High Court of the State, an oath or affirmation to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

Why the Governor is appointed and not elected?

In the beginning, the framers of the Constitution had decided upon an elected Governor for each of the States. This decision was in conformity with their idea of giving each State the maximum autonomy as units of a federation.

The position of the State Governor in the United States must have been the greatest influence upon them in this connection. However, within two years, they decided to abandon this idea in favour of an appointed Governor. What made them to do so deserve some consideration?

(1) In a Parliamentary system of government a popularly elected Governor does not fit well. If the Governor is elected directly by the people, he becomes a direct representative of the people and may very well exercise his powers not as the constitutional head of the State, but as its real head.

Such a position is very likely to create a rivalry between the Governor and the Council of Ministers whose members also are directly elected by the people. Since the American States have a Presidential system of government just as in the case of the Federal Government in the United States, they do not face a problem of rivalry between the Governor and his Cabinet.

(2) Instead of the Governor being elected directly by the people, if he is elected by the State Legislature, there seems to be not much chance of a rivalry between him and the Ministry. This is because the Ministry is responsible to the same legislature which has elected the Governor.

But a serious defect of such an arrangement seems to be the danger of the Governor becoming a pawn in the hands of a political party or parties that secure his election. Since he is not elected to the office on a permanent basis, the temptation for him to play into the hands of a legislative majority for the sake of re-election is, indeed, irresistible.

(3) Either a directly elected or an indirectly elected Governor is unlikely to fit into a highly centralised federal system of government. For, the Governor in either case is a representative of the State who receives his authority from the people of the State.

In case of a conflict between the State and the Union, such a Governor may not very likely prove an obedient servant or a convenient instrument of the Union Government. On the other hand, the Governor may create difficulties in the path of the Union’s authority extending in any form to the State’s sphere. This is not something in harmony with the idea of emergency powers under which the Union becomes all-powerful and the federal system ceases to function.

The original idea of the framers to have a weak Union and strong States had yielded place to one of a strong Union and weak States. A number of causes contributed for this major change in the basic structure of the Constitution.

Among these were the partition of the country, the various problems created by the partition, the food crisis, the urge for economic and social planning for the country as a whole, the upsurge of provincialism and the fear of possible instability of State Ministries.

It was thought that both for the preservation of the newly won independence and the planned development of the country, Central direction were essential. For this purpose, an elected Governor was not desirable. The Governor should be one who could be commanded by the President in times of emergency for translating the will of the Union into action within the State.

(4) It was thought that in the wake of a newly established self-government, the emergence of rival groups and factions was inevitable within the State Legislature and the State as a whole.

Under such conditions, a Governor who was a resident of the State might become an interested party rather than an impartial and independent mediator or conciliator of the rival factions. When the Governor is the President’s nominee there is very little possibility for such a danger.

(5) Even if the Governor is appointed by the President, so long as the State politics is of a stable character, so long as the Ministry has a solid backing within the legislature, he is bound to function as a constitutional head of the State just as the President himself.

The change in his role is envisaged only under exceptional circumstances. Hence, this is a provision that arose out of abundant caution and the Constitution-makers have been fully justified by events in some of the States during the last five decades.

The Canadian Constitution which has a strong Centre seems to have particularly influenced the Constituent Assembly in this connection. There, the Governor-General appoints all the Governors who hold office during his pleasure. But this provision as such has not affected the smooth working of the Canadian federation. On the contrary, it has on several occasions proved beneficial.

As Alladi Krishnaswami Aiyar said in the Constituent Assembly: “On the whole, in the interests of harmony, in the interests of a good working, in the interests of sounder relations between the Provincial Cabinet and the Governor, it will be much better if we accept the Canadian model.

Thus, the Constitution vests complete power in the President for the selection and appointment of the Governor. This means in effect that he is a nominee of the Central Government. But a healthy convention has grown up during the past years which make the Governor not merely a nominee of the Central Government but also one who is agreeable to the State concerned.

Such a result is obtained by the Central Government consulting the State Cabinet prior to the appointment of a new Governor. This enables the selection of an agreed candidate who is capable of discharging his responsibilities as the head of the State and “a sagacious counselor and adviser to the Ministry, one who can throw oil on the troubled waters” of the State politics.

Thus, the present method of selection has removed the evils which would have otherwise resulted from any of the alternative methods of selection originally contemplated by the Constituent Assembly.

Another convention has also been fairly well established and this too has contributed to making the position of the Governor one above party and group politics within the State. According to this, the person selected as the Governor of a State is normally an outsider, a resident of another State, one who has had no political entanglements within the State.

This has, on the whole, proved to be of great advantage. Not only does this keep the Governor out of the local politics, but it also enables him to look at the problems of the State and the problems of Union-State relationship with detachment and objectivity.

Powers and Functions of the Governor

The executive power of the State is vested in the Governor who is empowered to exercise it either directly or through officers subordinate to him. And the executive power of the State extends to all matters on which the State Legislature has the power to make laws.

In the discharge of his responsibilities as the Head of the State, the Governor exercises functions similar to those of the President as the Head of the Union. He appoints the Chief Minister and other members of the Council of Ministers who hold office during his pleasure.

He allocates the business of the Government among the Ministers and makes rules for the more convenient transaction of such business. All executive actions of the Government are taken in his name. He appoints the Advocate-General and other officers of the State.

In the States of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa, it is the special responsibility of the Governor to see that a Minister is placed in charge of tribal welfare. In Assam, the Governor is given certain special powers with respect to the administration of the tribal areas as provided in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.

Like the President’s power of pardon, the Governor too is empowered to grant pardons. This applies to all persons convicted of any offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State extends.

In the legislative field, the Governor has considerable powers. He is an integral part of the State legislature. He convenes the State Legislature, addresses it in person or sends messages to it, and can prorogue or dissolve it. During every financial year, he causes the budget to be laid before the House.

Demands for grants in the legislature can be made only on his recommendation. Every Bill that is passed by the State Legislature has to be presented to the Governor for his assent. The Governor has three alternatives before him with respect to such a Bill.

He may give his assent to it, in which case it becomes law. Or, he may return it to the Legislature with a message suggesting alteration or modifications. The Governor has, however, no power to return a Money Bill. Or again, he may reserve the Bill for the assent of the President if, in his opinion, it contains provisions which might endanger the position envisaged for the High Court under the Constitution.

The Governor has also the special legislative power of promulgating Ordinances during the recess of the State Legislature, if he is satisfied that there exist circumstances which make it necessary for him to take immediate action.

But with respect to three matters, the Governor is prohibited from promulgating Ordinances without prior instructions from the President. These are: (1) if the Ordinance contains provisions which, if embodied in a Bill, would require the previous sanction of the President for introduction in the State Legislature; or (2) if the Governor would have deemed it necessary to reserve a Bill containing the same provisions for the consideration of the President; or (3) if an Act of the State Legislature containing the same provisions would be invalid without the assent of the President.

Every Ordinance promulgated by the Governor has the same force and effect as an Act of the State Legislature. But every such Ordinance should be laid before the State Legislature when it reassembles and if the Ordinance is not upheld by the Legislature, then it becomes invalid.

The Governor is empowered to withdraw the Ordinance any time he likes. The Ordinance will be invalid if it has provisions which would not be valid if enacted in an Act of the State Legislature to which the Governor gives his assent.

During a period of emergency, the Governor comes into his own as the real head of the executive in the State. With the proclamation of an emergency by the President, the entire State administration comes directly under the control of the Union.

Being the “man on the spot” and the “agent” of the President in the State, the Governor during the period of emergency, takes over the reins of administration directly into his own hands and runs the State with the aid of the civil service.