V.S. Ramadevi, the former Chief Election Commissioner of India, has also served as the Governor of Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh. In a lecture given in 2005, she praised the integrity of Surjit Singh Barnala, who had been the Governor of Tamil Nadu for about nine months from 1990-91. Barnala had refused to send a report to the Centre recommending the imposition of President’s Rule in the State, as instructed by the Centre. Despite being transferred to Bihar as a punitive measure, Barnala chose to resign. Ramadevi commended his sense of independence and self-esteem, as well as his commitment to constitutional obligations.
Ramadevi also shared an incident from her own experience as the Governor of Himachal Pradesh. After the 1998 Assembly elections, there was uncertainty regarding which party would form the government. In that situation, Ramadevi decided to call the Congress, the largest party in the Assembly with 31 seats, and asked them to form the government after taking a statement from the sole independent candidate elected to the Assembly. However, the independent candidate rushed to the Raj Bhavan and claimed that he had been kidnapped and locked up by people from the opposition party. This incident highlighted the general concerns in the country regarding the use or misuse of the Raj Bhavans during that time.
There have been instances in recent times where Governors in various states have been interfering in the day-to-day administration, which is the responsibility of the elected governments. This trend is in addition to the well-known role played by Raj Bhavans in setting up or dismantling governments in states, which has called for judicial intervention. Similar situations have arisen in states like Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka, and Uttarakhand in recent years.
The role and powers of Governors in India have a history dating back to the Government of India Act in 1858. Under the Government of India Act, 1935, Governors were expected to act according to the advice of provincial governments. However, many provincial heads were dissatisfied with the Governors, as highlighted in the debates of the Constituent Assembly. The discussions during the assembly also brought up concerns about possible intrusions by the Raj Bhavans into the Chief Minister’s autonomy and the supervisory powers of the Governors.
While the makers of the Constitution trusted the office of the Governor, the Indian experience has shown a continuous misuse of gubernatorial power motivated by the Centre’s political interests. The Constitution mandates that the Chief Minister must inform the Governor about all decisions of the Council of Ministers relating to the administration of the state and proposals for legislation. The Governor can request further details and alert the Council of Ministers about any decision taken by a Minister without the Council’s attention. However, these provisions must be understood in the broader context of the Constitution’s governance framework.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Governor must generally follow the advice of the Cabinet, except in matters where discretion is allowed by the Constitution. The Governor can independently decide on matters like granting prosecution sanction for proceeding against a Minister. The Governor has the authority to act as the administrator of an adjoining Union Territory if appointed by the President, and in this role, can exercise functions independently of the Council of Ministers. In certain cases, the Governor can withhold assent to a bill or reserve it for consideration by the President.
Overall, the constitutional provisions regarding the Governor’s role in the Centre-State relations have been a subject of debate, as they have the potential to infringe upon democracy and federalism.