New Governors Of 9 States Appointed: What Do We Know About The Post? What Are His Powers? – News18

President Droupadi Murmu has appointed nine governors for nine states – Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Telangana, Punjab, Sikkim, Meghalaya, Assam, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh.

Former Union Minister and eight times Member of Parliament Santosh Kumar Gangwar, who was denied ticket to contest 2024 Lok Sabha polls from Bareilly, was appointed as Governor of Jharkhand.

CP Radhakrishnan, who is presently Jharkhand Governor with additional charge of Telangana, has been shifted to take over the constitutional post in Maharashtra.

BJP national Vice President and former RSS pracharak OP Mathur will take over as Governor of Sikkim from Lakshman Acharya who will take over as Governor of Assam with additional charge of the Governor of Manipur.

Gulab Chand Kataria, the Governor of Assam, has been moved to take over as Governor of Punjab with additional responsibility as Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh.

BJP leader and former Maharashtra Assembly Speaker Haribhau Kisanrao Bagde will take over as Governor of Rajasthan.

Ramen Deka, former Lok Sabha MP from Assam, has been appointed Chhattisgarh Governor.

Jishnu Dev Varma, BJP’s former Deputy CM of Tripura, has been appointed as Governor of Congress-ruled Telangana.

How is A Governor Appointed?

A Governor is appointed by the President and serves “during the pleasure of the President,” according to Articles 155 and 156 of the Constitution. If the Governor’s pleasure is withdrawn before the end of his five-year term, he must resign. Because the President works with the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers, the Governor can be appointed and removed by the Central government.

Article 153 of the Indian Constitution says, “There shall be a Governor for each State.” A few years after the commencement of the Constitution, an amendment in 1956 laid down that “nothing in this article shall prevent the appointment of the same person as Governor for two or more States”.

According to Article 163 of the Constitution, the Governor will normally be assisted and advised by the Council of Ministers, except in functions requiring his discretion.

While the Governor’s duties and responsibilities are limited to a single state, no provision exists for impeaching the Governor.

What is the ‘Pleasure Doctrine’?

The pleasure doctrine is a concept derived from English common law that states that the crown can refuse to employ anyone at any time. According to Article 310 of the Indian Constitution, every person in the Union’s defence or civil service serves at the pleasure of the President, and every member of the civil service in the States serves at the pleasure of the Governor. Article 311, on the other hand, limits the removal of a civil servant. It guarantees civil servants a reasonable opportunity to be heard on the charges levelled against them.

There is also a provision that allows the inquiry to be cancelled if it is not feasible to hold one or if it is not necessary in the interest of national security. According to Article 164, the Governor appoints the Chief Minister, and the Governor appoints the other ministers on the advice of the CM. It goes on to say that ministers serve at the Governor’s pleasure. In a constitutional scheme in which they are appointed solely on the advice of the CM, the ‘pleasure’ is referred to the CM’s right to dismiss a minister rather than the Governor’s. In short, a State Governor cannot remove a minister on his own.

What are the Qualifications of A Governor?

He should be an Indian citizen and should have completed the age of 35, as per Articles 157 and 158. The Governor should not be a Member of Parliament or a state legislature, and must not hold any other office of profit.

What is the Relationship Between Governor and State?

Article 163 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.”

The Governor also has the power under the Constitution such as giving or withholding assent to a Bill; determining the time needed for the party to prove a majority in the state Assembly or during a hung verdict when his position is very significant.

There are, however, no provisions in the Constitution governing how the Governor and the state must engage in public debate when they disagree. Respect for each other’s boundaries has traditionally guided the management of differences.

There have been arguments between state governments and Governors, with Governors such as RN Ravi and Arif Mohammad Khan being accused of partisan conduct by chief ministers of Tamil Nadu and Kerala, respectively.

In 2001, the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution set up by the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government, had noted, “… Because the Governor owes his appointment and his continuation in the office to the Union Council of Ministers, in matters where the Central Government and the State Government do not see eye to eye, there is the apprehension that he is likely to act in accordance with the instructions, if any, received from the Union Council of Ministers… Indeed, the Governors today are being pejoratively called the ‘agents of the Centre’.”

How Supreme Court Views Position Of Governor

• Shamsher Singh and others vs. the State of Punjab (1974): A seven-judge Supreme Court Constitution Bench ruled that the President and Governor, as custodians of all executive and other powers under various Articles, shall exercise their formal constitutional powers only on the advice of their ministers, except in a few well-known exceptional situations.

• Nabam Rebia And Etc. vs Deputy Speaker And Ors (2016): The Supreme Court cited BR Ambedkar’s observations in this case: “The Governor under the Constitution has no function which he can discharge by himself; no functions at all.” While he has no functions, he does have certain duties to fulfil, and the House should keep this distinction in mind.” The apex court also ruled that Article 163 of the Constitution does not grant the Governor broad discretion to act against or without the advice of his Council of Ministers.

• The Supreme Court expanded on the pleasure doctrine in BP Singhal vs Union of India (2010). It maintained that “no limitations or restrictions are placed on the ‘at pleasure’ doctrine,” but that this “does not dispense with the need for a cause for withdrawal of the pleasure.”