Definition :- No person shall be eligible for appointment as Governor unless
he is a citizen of India
He has completed the age of thirty five years
He /she shouldn’t be the member of any house or any state legislature
He/she shouldn’t hold any office of profit.
The Normal term of the governor is 5 years but he/she can be terminated easily before the expiration of the term
The government office can be terminated earlier by the President on the advice of the council of minister headed by he prime minister . He/she should be dismissed form the office with the valid reason . However it is upto the descrition of the president to upheld the governor post whose acts are upheld and lead malified by yhe court
Historical background :-
The Governors under the Government of India Act 1935 were “by the Raj, of the Raj and for the Raj”. The constituent assembly wanted elected governors as proposed by a sub-committee of B.G. Kher, K.N. Katju and P. Subbarayan.
The apprehension of the clash between powers of Governor and Chief minister led to the system of appointed Governor in the state.
The draft constitution of 1948 was ambivalent – the drafting committee leaving it to the constituent assembly to decide whether governors should be elected or nominated.
There are numerous examples of the Governor’s position being abused, usually at the behest of the ruling party at the Centre. The process of appointment has generally been the cause behind it.
In several cases, politicians and former bureaucrats identifying with a particular political ideology have been appointed as the Governors by the Governments. This goes against the constitutionally mandated neutral seat and has resulted in bias, as appears to have happened in Karnataka and Goa.
Recently, the Governor of Rajasthan has been charged with the violation of the model code of conduct. His support of the ruling party is against the spirit of nonpartisanship that is expected from the person sitting on constitutional posts.
Due to such incidents, negative terms like an agent of the Centre, Puppet and rubber stamps are used to describe a governor of the state.
Governor’s discretionary powers to invite the leader of the largest party/alliance, post-election, to form the government has often been misused to favour a particular political party.
The Governors Committee (1971) laid down the responsibility on the governor to see that the administration of the State does not breakdown due to political instability and he must send a regular report about the political situation of the State.
However, the imposition of President’s rule (Article 356) in case of breakdown of constitutional machinery in a State has been frequently misused by the central government.
Governor’s work is bound by the aid and advice of his council of ministers, this has brought down the significance of the office to a mere rubber stamp.
This is reflected in TB. Pattabhi Sitaramayya (a former Governor of Madhya Pradesh) observation that he had no public function to perform except making the fortnightly report to the President.
The arbitrary removal of the Governor before the expiration of his tenure has also been an important issue in the recent past.
The Governor cannot be removed on the ground that he is out of sync with the policies and ideologies of the Union government or the party in power at the Centre. Nor can he be removed on the ground that the Union government has lost confidence in him.
S.R. Bommai Judgment
In S.R. Bommai case (1994), following the Sarkaria Commission’s recommendations, the Supreme Court underlined that the breakdown of constitutional machinery implied a virtual impossibility, and not a mere difficulty, in carrying out governance in a State.
SC said that while the subjective satisfaction of the President regarding such a breakdown was beyond judicial scrutiny, the material on which such satisfaction was based could certainly be analysed by the judiciary, including the Governor’s report.
The Court reinstated the governments in Arunachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand which were suspended after the arbitrary imposition of the President’s Rule.
The Supreme Court classified the instances of failure of constitutional machinery into four heads:
Non-compliance with constitutional directions of the Union Executive.
Other Cases and Recommendation
The Supreme Court in the Nabam Rebia judgment (2016) ruled that the exercise of Governor’s discretion Article 163 is limited and his choice of action should not be arbitrary or fanciful. It must be a choice dictated by reason, actuated by good faith and tempered by caution.
The Administrative Reforms Commission (1968) recommended that the report of the governor regarding the president’s rule has to be objective and also the governor should exercise his own judgment in this regard.
The Rajamannar Committee (1971) recommended the deletion of Articles 356 and 357 from the constitution of India. The necessary provisions for safeguards against arbitrary action of the ruling party at the Centre under Article 356 should be incorporated in the constitution.
The Rajamannar Committee emphasised that the governor of the state should not consider himself as an agent of the centre but play his role as the constitutional head of the State.
The Sarkaria Commission (1988) recommended that Article 356 should be used in very rare cases when it becomes unavoidable to restore the breakdown of constitutional machinery in the State.
The commission recommended that before taking action under Article 356, a warning should be issued to the state government that it is not functioning according to the constitution.
“Justice V.Chelliah Commission” (2002) recommended that Article 356 must be used sparingly and only as a remedy of the last resort after exhausting all actions under Articles 256, 257 and 355.
The “Punchhi commission” recommended that these Articles 355 & 356 be amended. It sought to protect the interests of the States by trying to curb their misuse by the C
Books referred in this article was vn shukla constitution of India
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at email@example.com