Which one of the following suggested that the Governor should be an imminent person from outside the State and should be a detached figure without intense political links or should not have taken part in politics in the recent past?
Contents11
- AFirst Administrative Reforms Commission (1966)
- BRajamannar Committee (1969)
- CSarkaria Commission (1983)
- DNational Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2000)
Show answer
Answer: (C) Sarkaria Commission (1983)
The correct answer is (C) — Sarkaria Commission (1983).
The Sarkaria Commission, which submitted its report in 1988, recommended that the Governor should be an eminent person from outside the state, should be a detached figure without strong political links, and should not have taken part in politics in the recent past.
It also suggested that the state Chief Minister should have a say in the appointment.
Tip: Sarkaria Commission = Centre-State relations, including Governor's appointment guidelines.
The Sarkaria Commission (1983-88) was India's first major study on Centre-State relations and made comprehensive recommendations on the Governor's role to reduce political interference.
The Commission specifically recommended that Governors should be eminent persons from outside the state without recent political involvement to ensure neutrality in federal conflicts.
This question tests knowledge of which specific commission made the key recommendations that are still debated today regarding Governor appointments and qualifications.
Sarkaria Commission (1983)
Indian Polity Sarkaria Commission 1983 Governor
Sarkaria Commission (1983): Centre-State Relations & Governor's Role
Sarkaria Commission (1983) recommended Governor should be eminent person from outside the state with no recent political links
Submitted report in 1988 after 5 years of study on Centre-State relations
Suggested state Chief Minister should have say in Governor's appointment
Named after Justice R.S. Sarkaria (former Supreme Court Judge)
Background
The Sarkaria Commission was constituted in 1983 to examine Centre-State relations under the Constitution. It was the most comprehensive review of federal structure since independence, addressing growing tensions between Union and State governments.
Key Recommendations on Governor
Aspect | Sarkaria Commission Recommendation |
|---|---|
Selection Criteria | Eminent person with distinguished career |
State Connection | Should be from outside the state of appointment |
Political Links | Should be detached figure without intense political connections |
Recent Politics | Should not have participated in politics in recent past |
Consultation | State Chief Minister should have say in appointment |
Tenure | Should complete full 5-year term unless exceptional circumstances |
Other Major Recommendations
Article 356 (President's Rule) should be used sparingly and as last resort
All India Services should be strengthened to maintain federal balance
Inter-State Council should be established under Article 263
Zonal Councils should be revitalized for better coordination
Question Context
This question tests specific knowledge of which commission recommended guidelines for Governor's appointment. The key trap is confusing Sarkaria Commission with other constitutional review bodies that dealt with different aspects of governance.
Trap: Confusing Sarkaria Commission with Rajamannar Committee - latter focused on state autonomy, not Governor's appointment
Trap: Mixing up with First ARC (1966) - it dealt with administrative reforms, not Centre-State relations
Trap: NCRWC (2000) came much later and had broader constitutional review mandate
Memory Aid: Sarkaria = Governor Selection guidelines (both start with 'S')
Constitutional Review Commissions
Indian Polity Administrative Reforms Commission Rajamannar Committee National Commission
Major Constitutional & Administrative Review Bodies: Key Distinctions
First ARC (1966) focused on administrative efficiency and reforms
Rajamannar Committee (1969) demanded greater state autonomy from Tamil Nadu
Sarkaria Commission (1983) examined Centre-State relations comprehensively
NCRWC (2000) reviewed entire Constitution after 50 years
Commission Comparison
Commission | Year | Chairman | Main Focus | Key Output |
|---|---|---|---|---|
First ARC | 1966 | Morarji Desai | Administrative reforms | Recommendations for efficient administration |
Rajamannar Committee | 1969 | P.V. Rajamannar | State autonomy | Centre-State relations from state perspective |
Sarkaria Commission | 1983 | R.S. Sarkaria | Centre-State relations | Federal balance, Governor's role |
NCRWC | 2000 | M.N. Venkatachaliah | Constitutional review | Comprehensive constitutional changes |
Specific Mandates
First ARC: Streamlining government machinery, personnel administration, financial management
Rajamannar Committee: Strengthening state governments, reducing central interference
Sarkaria Commission: Balancing federal structure, defining Centre-State boundaries
NCRWC: Updating Constitution for 21st century challenges
Trap: All dealt with governance but different aspects - don't assume overlap
Trap: Chronology matters - earlier commissions had narrower focus than later ones
Trap: Rajamannar was state-appointed (Tamil Nadu), others were Centre-appointed
Memory: ARC = Administration, Rajamannar = State Rights, Sarkaria = Federal Balance
Governor's Appointment & Qualifications
Indian Polity Governor imminent person outside the State
Governor's Appointment: Constitutional Framework vs Commission Recommendations
Article 155: Governor appointed by President on aid and advice of Council of Ministers
No constitutional bar on appointing person from same state (unlike Sarkaria recommendation)
Article 156: Term of 5 years but holds office during President's pleasure
Sarkaria guidelines are recommendations, not constitutional requirements
Constitutional vs Sarkaria Framework
Aspect | Constitutional Provision | Sarkaria Recommendation |
|---|---|---|
Appointing Authority | President (Article 155) | President with CM consultation |
State Connection | No restriction | Should be from outside state |
Political Background | No restriction | No recent political involvement |
Qualifications | Indian citizen, 35+ years | Eminent person with distinguished career |
Tenure | 5 years (pleasure of President) | Complete full term unless exceptional |
Removal | President's discretion | Should be rare and justified |
Current Appointment Practice
Central government typically follows some Sarkaria guidelines informally
Political appointments still common despite recommendations
Former civil servants, judges, politicians frequently appointed
State consultation remains limited in practice
Trap: Sarkaria recommendations are not constitutional requirements - Constitution allows same-state appointments
Trap: Article 155 doesn't mandate outside-state criterion unlike Sarkaria suggestion
Constitutional vs Recommended: Know the difference between what Constitution permits vs what commissions suggest