The question of the institution of Governors has been thrown since the independence era. The doubts have emerged again in the recent years with controversies surrounding the decision making process and legitimacy of the position of the governor. Parallels are often drawn between the position of the Governor and that of the President. Governors are supposed to play the role of a sort of executive head of a state. The major difference between the institution of the President and that of a Governor is that the former is elected by the representatives of the people, in other words, indirectly elected by the people. The President is elected by the Members of Parliament and the Members of State Legislatures. The Governor on the other hand is appointed by the President of India which implies, the discretion is with the Union Council of Ministers.

This arrangement casts a shadow on the security of the tenure of a Governor which, again, influences functioning of the institution itself. The Governor is supposed to be the executive head of a state by being part of the State Legislature. Furthermore, the administration of the state is carried on using the Governor’s name. This doesn’t quite fit in with the fact that even though the involvement of the Governor in the State is intrinsic, the people of the state of their representatives have absolutely no say in the Governor’s appointment. As mentioned above, due to the nature of his appointment by the Centre, there is no provision for the State representatives to impeach or address a Governor’s actions affecting their vested interests. Complaining to the President is not really a valid channel of addressing a grievance as the President himself holds the reins of the Governor. The principle of natural justice seems to be missing when the only option remaining with the State Legislatures is to complain against the President, about an institution which is controlled by the President. 

This has a degrading impact on the democratic ideals of our country in a situation where there is no clear majority in a state’s election result and the Governor holds the discretion with regards to whom should be invited to form the government of that state. Times have changed from the years between 1952 to 1967 when a single political party used to control all the State Legislatures along with the Centre. With the presence of different political parties holding different ideologies, the institution of Governors is often ridiculed, by being called ‘agents of the Centre’. 

Pertaining to the particular provision of Article 356, there have been a few Governors who have used their positions and proved these suspicions right. In the landmark case ‘S.R. Bommai v. Union of India’ (AIR 1994 SC 1918), the following was stated by the judges with regards to the conduct of the then Governor of Karnataka:

“We are of the view that this is a case where all canons of propriety were thrown to winds and the undue haste made by the Governor in inviting the President to issue the proclamation under Article 356(1) smacked of mala fides.... The action of the Governor was more objectionable since as a high constitutional functionary, he was expected to conduct himself more fairly, cautiously and circumspectly.”

Similar observations were made when the honourable judges were dealing with the conduct of the then Governor of Meghalaya. With rising suspicion and distrust among the masses over politicians as a class, it is high time for the government to take steps to reform this institution for the better.