Do we really need governors?

After SC judgment in TN case, it is time to rethink need and role of the office

Alok Tiwari

After several years of nudging the state governors to behave, the supreme court last week finally cracked the whip. It ruled Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi’s recalcitrance on giving assent to bills passed by the state assembly was illegal. It invoked a rarely used provision to give assent to the pending bills itself. The court also set clear deadlines by which the governors ought to give assent to the bills. The apex court went a step further and set deadlines for the president to do the same. This was necessitated by the fact that governors referred bills to president as another delaying tactic.

The hard SC intervention came after continued meddling by governors in the affairs of states run by parties other than ruling party at the centre. About a year and half ago the top court had warned the then Punjab Governor Banwarilal Purohit. It then asked the Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan to read its Punjab judgment to coax him to give assent to bills. Those rulings did not seem to deter Ravi from crossing all limits in thwarting the will of elected legislature, forcing SC to take stringent measures.

Before that, there have been constant reports of governors creating hurdles in state’s functioning in opposition-ruled states. This has been an ongoing issue in West Bengal. Governors, who are appointed by the president on recommendation of central council of ministers, report to the Centre. There is a history of use of Raj Bhavans by the Centre to destabilize unfriendly state governments. Earlier Centre could just dismiss the elected state government and impose president’s rule on a simple recommendation from the governor. SC had to step in then too to curb this. It did so through SR Bommai case in 1994 by prescribing detailed guidelines on how governors must act during political instability. This meant president’s rule can only be imposed during real breakdown of constitutional machinery and not just to get rid of an opposition government.

With that power restricted, the puppet governors resorted to needling chief ministers in other ways. They often spoke, sought reports from, and gave directions to bureaucrats and police officials. Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshiary, apart from other things, refused to appoint MLCs on recommendation of chief minister Uddhav Thackeray because that would have given government majority in the upper house. In their address to the legislature, governors often skipped reading parts they thought would embarrass their political party or leader though they are enjoined to read the address prepared by the state government. As ex-officio chancellors of state universities, they used special powers to interfere in latter’s functioning too. Things turned so bad that some governments passed laws removing governor as ex-officio chancellors of their universities.

All told the governors in the past few years have done little other than being a thorn in the flesh of the unfriendly state government. For a friendly one, they are just an expensive but largely useless appendage. This raises the question whether the office itself should be continued. Many think it is time to abolish it. Governors mostly have a ceremonial role in Indian polity. On most occasions, the office is used as a cozy retirement perch for senior ruling party politicians. It is also used to reward loyal senior bureaucrats, military officials, and even judges, raising troubling questions whether the carrot of post-retirement office influenced their decisions while in service.

Governors do play a critical role when elections result in a hung assembly or when a government loses majority in the house through other means. But even at that time, they act mostly as representative of ruling party at the centre. There is no reason why the office cannot be abolished and all its powers and functions transferred to the president. During the time of picking a chief minister after elections or during periods of political uncertainty, the president can send an emissary to recommend the course of action. Similarly, during president’s rule in any state the president can appoint an administrator to the run the affairs on the advice of union council of ministers.

It will remove a huge irritant in Centre-state relations as the president is unlikely to micro-meddle in state affairs the way a full-time governor can and does. This will also save a huge amount for all state governments. Governors and their staff cost crores of rupees to every state government. Even former governors continue to incur cost by way of pensions, protocol and travel privileges, security, and healthcare. Doing away with the office will directly and immediately save these costs. Besides, Raj Bhavans occupy hundreds of acres in every capital city and even in a couple of non-capital ones. That prime real estate can be better utilised for some public good. These mansions can be turned into museums or educational institutions and greenery around them opened to public as parks.

If the office must be continued, then it needs to be made more neutral. Specifically, governors must have the same powers with respect to state government that the president has with respect to the centre. Instead of making the office a means to reward loyalty, why not get seasoned jurists, administrators, academics and other eminent people to serve? It might be a good idea to use the same formula that SC prescribed for picking the election commissioners. A committee of PM, CJI and leader of largest opposition parties can be asked to select governors. Their picks should be through consensus, meaning everyone will have a veto. This will ensure only persons acceptable to everyone are appointed to the high office.

Besides making Centre-state relations more cordial, it will strengthen the federal structure of the country. It will go a long way in reinstating the prestige of the office. An independent person can also use the visibility of the office to highlight and serve several causes that a busy chief minister may not be able to devote time to.

This column appeared in Lokmat Times on April 16, 2025