Profile
Settings
Refer your friends
Sign out
Central government and states have always been at odds over the role of Governors. Due to their appointment by the central government, Governors’ actions are often seen as interference by the central government with the operation of the states. Two different parties in power at the centre and in the state exacerbate the difficulty of the governor’s role. In a contingency situation, such as the President’s rule, the governors in India have no role or powers unless the President expressly authorised it under articles 160, 356, and 357.
Eligibility Criteria for Governors in India
According to Articles 153 of the Constitution of India, there should be at least one governor in each state of India.
The governor could be appointed by the President.
A person who is a citizen of India who has completed the age of 35 years could be eligible for governor of India.
They should not be MLA or MP from any constituency.
Governors are supposed to take an oath.
Duties and Limitations of Governors in India
Governors of states have three types of power: executive, legislative and judicial power. However, they can’t take diplomatic, military or emergency powers.
Here are some of the issues with Article 356, which provides for the President’s rule in any State:
It can be invoked if the state’s government cannot follow the provisions of the Constitution.
This results in the Union government taking over the State government.
Parliament must ratify the proclamation of the President.
It is possible to extend the President’s term until three years.
Article 356 has been used/misused more than 125 times, despite B.R. Ambedkar’s assurance that it would remain a dead letter.
Rather than a genuine breakdown of the states’ constitutional machinery, it was almost always used for political reasons.
Former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi invoked Article 356 27 times, the majority of the time to depose majority governments based on political stability, a lack of clear mandate, or withdrawal of support, among other reasons.
When the Janata government formed the government for the first time in 1977, they removed nine state Congress governments in retaliation.
Controversy
Upon recommendation of the Governors in India, the State Assembly may be suspended or dissolved. Sometimes State legislatures were excused in any event when they had a greater part in the lawmaking body or without testing their larger part – for instance, in Kerala in 1959. In some cases, the Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional validity of the decision to impose the President’s rule can be examined.
Abuse of Power by the Centre: The position of governors in India has been abused on numerous occasions, usually at request of the ruling party at the centre. In most cases, the scheduling procedure has been the source of the issue.
Biased Ideology: In several cases, former bureaucrats and politicians who identify with a specific political ideology are appointed as governors by the central government. As seen in Karnataka and Goa, it violates the Constitution’s mandated neutral seat and appears to have resulted in bias.
Puppet Governors: Rajasthan’s governor was recently charged with violating the model code of conduct. His partisanship goes against the Constitution’s requirement that those in positions of power be nonpartisan. Derogatory terms like “agent of the Centre,” “puppet,” and “rubber stamps” are used to criticise state governors as a result of these incidents.
Favouring One Political Party Over Others: After an election, the governor’s discretionary powers to ask the largest party/alliance leader to form the government have frequently been used to favour one political party over another.
Power Abuse: A Governor’s request for President’s Rule (Article 356) in a state has not always been based on ‘objective material,’ but rather on the governor’s personal feelings.
Conclusion
The President’s rule impacts the nation’s federal structure, essentially turning it into a unitary one while attempting to protect the nation’s and people’s interests.
Although the suspension of fundamental rights has been repeatedly attempted to be justified, we believe that they are the most basic to the residents’ very existence in a democracy.
Even with the safeguards enacted by the 44th Amendment Act, there is still a risk of unjust violations of fundamental rights.
