Governor Appointments and Federal Tensions: Constitutional Provisions vs Political Conventions
Contents4
Indian Express - Explained · 9 Mar 2026 · 2 min read
Prelims · Polity Mains · GS2 Polity and constitution High relevance
Recent gubernatorial reshuffles, including West Bengal, highlight constitutional provisions for Governor appointments and growing tensions between state governments and Governors, raising questions on cooperative federalism.
Key points
Article 155 of the Indian Constitution mandates that Governors are appointed by the President, effectively meaning the Union government, without requiring consultation with state governments.
West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee protested the appointment of new Governor R N Ravi, citing violation of established convention of consulting state CMs, reflecting ongoing Centre-state tensions.
Article 156 states Governors serve at the President's pleasure, allowing their removal before the 5-year term, which has been used controversially in opposition-ruled states.
The Sarkaria Commission (1988) and Punchhi Commission (2010) recommended amending Article 155 to mandate consultation with CMs, but these remain unimplemented.
[GS2-Governance] Frequent Governor changes in opposition-ruled states undermine institutional stability and erode trust in the apolitical role envisioned for Governors.
Governor's powers under the Constitution include assenting to bills, determining majority in hung assemblies, and recommending President's Rule - all increasingly politicized in recent years.
[GS3-Polity] The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2002) proposed a committee including PM, Home Minister, Lok Sabha Speaker and concerned CM for Governor appointments.
Way Forward: Constitutional amendments should codify CM consultation, establish transparent appointment criteria, and define 'pleasure of President' to prevent arbitrary removals, strengthening federal balance.
Key terms
- Doctrine of Pleasure
- Derived from Article 156, allows President to remove Governors at will. UPSC relevance stems from its misuse allegations in political contexts, requiring judicial interpretation to balance constitutional provisions with federal principles.
- Cooperative Federalism
- Principle of shared governance between Centre and states. This case highlights its erosion in Governor appointments, significant for GS2 questions on Centre-state relations and constitutional governance challenges.
- Article 155
- Constitutional provision governing Governor appointments, stating the President appoints Governors by warrant. Its significance lies in centralizing appointment power with the Union government, creating federal tensions when used without state consultation, especially in opposition-ruled states.
- Sarkaria Commission
- 1988 commission on Centre-state relations that recommended consulting state CMs before Governor appointments. Its unimplemented suggestions remain relevant for UPSC as they address core federalism questions in India's quasi-federal structure.
Practice question
Critically examine the constitutional provisions related to the appointment and removal of Governors in India, and their impact on cooperative federalism. Suggest reforms to strengthen the federal structure. (250 words, 15 marks)
GS2 15 marks 250 words Mains
Key terms to include: Article 155 Article 156 Sarkaria Commission Doctrine of Pleasure Cooperative Federalism Discretionary Powers B.P. Singhal Case Punchhi Commission
Answer framework
Introduction
Briefly introduce the constitutional framework for Governor appointments (Article 155) and removals (Article 156), highlighting their centralizing nature.
Constitutional Provisions
Article 155: President appoints Governors without mandatory state consultation
Article 156: Governors serve at President's pleasure, enabling arbitrary removals
Discretionary powers under Articles 200, 356 create potential for misuse
Impact on Federalism
Erosion of trust between Centre and states, especially opposition-ruled ones
Undermines Governor's role as constitutional head of state
Recent controversies in West Bengal, Kerala, Tamil Nadu exemplify tensions
Judicial Interpretations
Supreme Court's B.P. Singhal case (2010) on arbitrary removals
Need for reasoned removals, but limited enforcement mechanisms
Judicial reluctance to interfere in 'pleasure' doctrine
Suggested Reforms
Implement Sarkaria/Punchhi Commission recommendations for CM consultation
Fixed tenure with removal only through impeachment-like process
Establish bipartisan appointment committee including PM, CM, Speaker
Conclusion
Stress the need to balance constitutional provisions with federal principles through reforms that institutionalize consultation and transparency in Governor appointments.
Fact check
All facts verified