Governor’s Discretionary Powers: Controversies, Court Rulings & UPSC Analysis
Complete analysis of the Governor's discretionary powers under the Indian Constitution — Articles 153-167, key controversies like Karnataka 2018, Maharashtra 2019, landmark Supreme Court rulings, and Punchhi Commission recommendations for UPSC preparation.
The Governor is the most politically controversial constitutional office in India. On paper, Article 154 vests executive power of the state in the Governor. In practice, the Governor acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers under Article 163(1) — except when the Constitution requires the Governor to act "in his discretion."
That exception is where every controversy begins.
UPSC has tested this topic repeatedly in GS-II Mains. The 2023 paper asked about the relationship between the Governor and the State Legislature. The 2018 paper directly questioned the discretionary role. You cannot afford to write a vague answer here.
Constitutional Position of the Governor: Articles 153-167
Article 153 requires a Governor for each state (one Governor can serve multiple states). Article 155 provides for appointment by the President — meaning the Central Government picks the Governor. Article 156 fixes the tenure at 5 years but adds "during the pleasure of the President," making the Governor removable at any time without reason.
This appointment-and-removal mechanism is the root of every political controversy. The Governor is not elected. The Governor serves at the Centre's pleasure. The Governor exercises discretionary powers that can make or break state governments.
Key constitutional provisions governing the Governor:
- Article 157-158: Qualifications and conditions of office
- Article 161: Pardoning power (independent of President's power under Article 72)
- Article 163: Aid and advice of Council of Ministers, with discretionary exception
- Article 164: Chief Minister appointed by Governor
- Article 200: Assent to bills, including reservation for President
- Article 356: Report on failure of constitutional machinery
Common student mistake: Writing that the Governor has "no discretionary powers" or "unlimited discretionary powers." Both are wrong. The Constitution gives specific, limited discretionary powers — and the Supreme Court has defined their boundaries through multiple rulings.
Discretionary Powers: What the Constitution Actually Says
Article 163(1) states: "There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions, except in so far as he is by or under this Constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion."
Article 163(2) adds a critical shield: "If any question arises whether any matter is or is not a matter as respects which the Governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his discretion, the decision of the Governor in his discretion shall be final."
This means courts cannot question whether a matter falls within discretion — but they can examine whether the Governor exercised that discretion properly.
The Six Core Discretionary Functions
1. Appointing the Chief Minister when no party has a clear majority (Article 164)
The Governor must invite someone to form the government. When one party has a clear majority, there is no discretion — the majority leader becomes CM. Discretion arises only in a hung assembly. The Sarkaria Commission recommended: invite the single largest party first, then test on the floor.
2. Dismissing the state government
No explicit constitutional provision authorizes dismissal. The Governor can withdraw "pleasure" under Article 164(1), but the Sarkaria Commission stated this should happen only when the CM loses majority and refuses to face a floor test.
3. Reserving bills for the President (Article 200)
The Governor can reserve any bill for the President's consideration instead of giving assent. There is no time limit for the President to act on reserved bills — creating a "pocket veto" problem. The Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) did not fix this gap.
4. Recommending President's Rule (Article 356)
The Governor sends a report to the President that constitutional machinery has failed. The S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) judgment made this power judicially reviewable — the most significant check on gubernatorial discretion.
5. Dissolving the state assembly
The Governor can dissolve the assembly on the CM's advice. But what if the CM has lost majority? The Governor must use discretion to decide whether dissolution or an alternative government is appropriate.
6. Special responsibilities in certain states
Governors of states like Maharashtra (Vidarbha development), Assam (tribal areas), and states with Sixth Schedule areas have explicit constitutional responsibilities.
Landmark Controversies That Shaped the Debate
Karnataka 2018: The Yeddyurappa Episode
Results: BJP 104, Congress 78, JD(S) 37 in a 224-seat assembly. Majority mark: 113. Congress and JD(S) formed a post-poll alliance claiming 115 seats. Governor Vajubhai Vala invited BJP's B.S. Yeddyurappa to form the government and gave him 15 days to prove majority.
The Supreme Court intervened. In a historic overnight hearing, the Court reduced the deadline to a floor test within 24 hours. Yeddyurappa resigned before the test. The Congress-JD(S) coalition formed the government.
The controversy: Should the Governor have invited the post-poll alliance instead of the single largest party? The Sarkaria Commission supports inviting the single largest party, but the Punchhi Commission recommended that a pre-poll alliance should be treated at par with a single party.
Maharashtra 2019: The Early Morning Oath
At 5:47 AM on November 23, 2019, Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari administered oath to Devendra Fadnavis as CM and Ajit Pawar as Deputy CM. President’s Rule was revoked at night without Cabinet approval. The Supreme Court ordered an immediate floor test. Fadnavis resigned within days.
The Court's observation was damning — the floor test must happen at the "earliest possible" opportunity when legitimacy is in doubt.
Delhi L-G Powers: The NCT Saga
The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Act, 2021 expanded the L-G's powers, requiring the Delhi government to obtain L-G's opinion before executive action. The Supreme Court in Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2023) ruled that the Delhi government controls services except police, land, and public order — but the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023 overturned this ruling legislatively by creating the National Capital Civil Services Authority.
This ongoing battle demonstrates the Centre-state tension at its most acute.
Key Supreme Court Rulings
Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016)
The Supreme Court ruled that the Governor cannot direct a floor test when a no-confidence motion is pending against the Speaker. The Governor's discretion to order a floor test exists, but it must respect the legislature's own processes. A 5-judge bench held that Article 163 does not give the Governor blanket discretionary power.
Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006)
The Bihar assembly was dissolved in 2005 before any party was invited to form the government. The Supreme Court declared the dissolution unconstitutional, holding that the Governor's report recommending dissolution was based on "wholly irrelevant considerations." This was the first time the Court struck down an assembly dissolution.
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
The landmark 9-judge bench ruling established that:
- Presidential proclamation under Article 356 is judicially reviewable
- The Governor's report is not conclusive — the Court can examine whether relevant material existed
- The floor test is the only acceptable method to determine majority
- Dissolution of the assembly should not occur until Parliament approves the proclamation
Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974)
A 7-judge bench held that the President and Governor are constitutional heads who must act on ministerial advice, except in matters where discretion is expressly granted.
Sarkaria and Punchhi Commission Recommendations
| Recommendation | Sarkaria Commission (1988) | Punchhi Commission (2010) |
|---|---|---|
| Governor's appointment | Should be eminent person, consult CM | Fixed tenure, remove only by state legislature resolution |
| Dismissal of CM | Only if CM refuses floor test after losing majority | Same, with time-bound floor test |
| Article 356 | Use as last resort, only after all alternatives exhausted | Localize emergency to specific areas, not entire state |
| Reserving bills | Should be rare, reasons to be communicated | Time limit for presidential decision on reserved bills |
| Hung assembly | Invite single largest party first | Pre-poll alliance treated as single party |
| Governor's removal | Doctrine of pleasure should continue | State legislature should have a role in removal |
Common student mistake: Confusing Sarkaria and Punchhi recommendations. Sarkaria was more conservative (preserve the system, add safeguards). Punchhi was more reformist (structural changes to Governor's office).
Governor's Discretionary vs Constitutional Functions
| Function | Nature | Relevant Article | Key Constraint |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appointing CM (clear majority) | Constitutional (bound by convention) | 164(1) | Must appoint majority leader |
| Appointing CM (hung assembly) | Discretionary | 164(1) | Sarkaria: largest party first |
| Giving assent to bills | Constitutional (normally bound) | 200 | Should not delay indefinitely |
| Reserving bills for President | Discretionary | 200 | No time limit exists (gap) |
| Recommending President's Rule | Discretionary | 356 | Judicially reviewable (Bommai) |
| Pardoning power | Constitutional | 161 | Independent of Article 72 |
| Dissolving assembly | Discretionary (in specific cases) | 174(2)(b) | Cannot dissolve to prevent floor test |
| Returning bill for reconsideration | Constitutional | 200 | Cannot return Money Bills |
How UPSC Tests This Topic
UPSC approaches this from three angles:
Direct questions on discretionary powers: "Discuss the discretionary powers of the Governor. Are they consistent with the principles of parliamentary democracy?" (GS-II, 2018 pattern)
Centre-state relations: "Examine the role of the Governor in Centre-State relations with reference to recent controversies." (GS-II, 2023 pattern)
Judicial review angle: "To what extent can the judiciary review the actions of the Governor under Article 163?" (GS-II, linking polity with judiciary)
For your answer, always structure it as: Constitutional provision → Discretionary scope → Controversy example → Court ruling → Commission recommendation → Your analysis. This six-step structure separates a 10-mark answer from a 5-mark one.