As Governors walk out of Assemblies, what has SC said on their powers

Article 163 of the Constitution states that the Governor is bound to exercise his functions only after the Council of Ministers and the Chief Minister of a state give their “aid and advice”, unless the Constitution specifically requires him / her to exercise discretion.

One of the first cases where the Supreme Court focused on the Governor’s role was in 1994, after then Karnataka Governor P Venkatasubbaiah recommended President’s Rule in the state after 19 MLAs reportedly withdrew support to the S R Bommai government. The Manmohan Singh-led Congress government was in power at the time. He reasoned that Bommai no longer enjoyed a majority and no other party was capable of forming the government.

The Supreme Court, while hearing the case, held that a report with a “detailed factual foundation” to show that the “Constitutional machinery in the state has failed” must be submitted to the President. The report, the Court said, must be sent to the Council of Ministers and can be sent to the President only after it receives their approval, as the Governor was bound by their aid and advice.

The issue came up in the apex court again in 2016, after Arunachal Pradesh Governor Jyoti Prasad Rajkhowa unilaterally decided to advance the session of the Assembly by a month and listed a motion to remove Speaker Nabam Rebia following letters sent by 13 MLAs expressing “displeasure”.

Even as Article 173 of the Constitution grants the Governor the power to summon, prorogue (discontinue) or dissolve the Assembly, the Court held that this can be exercised only after consulting the Council of Ministers. By this time, the Modi government was in power at the Centre.

In April 2020, the Supreme Court was once again asked to decide if the then Madhya Pradesh Governor Lalji Tandon was justified in ordering a floor test after he received information that 22 MLAs, including six ministers, had resigned.

The apex court, while upholding the power to call for a floor test, addressed the Governor’s role in state politics. “The authority of the governor is not one to be exercised in aid of a political dispensation which considers an elected government of the day to be a political opponent… To act contrary to this mandate would result in the realisation of the worst fears of the Constitutional framers who were cognisant that the office of the Governor could potentially derail democratically elected governments but nonetheless placed trust in future generations to ensure that government of the people, by the people and for the people would not be denuded by those who were designed to act as its sentinels,” it observed.

In November last year, the Punjab government moved the Supreme Court against Governor Banwari Lal Purohit alleging that he had refused to give his assent to four Bills passed by the Assembly. The Tamil Nadu and Kerala government also sought the apex court’s intervention on the issue.

The Supreme Court, observing that Article 200 of the Constitution requires the Governor to send the Bill back to the Assembly “as soon as possible” if it needs reconsideration, held that he or she cannot unduly delay assent to a Bill. It also held that the Constitution requires the Governor to “declare” his or her actions – giving assent, sending the Bill to the President for consideration or withholding assent while sending it back to the Assembly for reconsideration.