“Gubernatorial discretion in India often becomes a point of political and administrative conflict.” Analyse.

Overview

India’s federal structure heavily relies on the governor, who is seen as an impartial constitutional figure. However, the Center and States frequently experience political and administrative conflict as a result of the discretionary powers granted under Articles 153, 163, 174, and 200.

Conflict Areas

During the formation of governments, particularly in hung assemblies, gubernatorial discretion is most apparent. There have often been disputes over decisions about calling for floor tests, inviting parties, and determining majority. Examples from Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu demonstrate how the decisions made by governors can affect political results and spark constitutional discussions.

When governors refuse or postpone their assent to state bills, more conflict results. Governors have been accused by a number of states of causing legislative bottlenecks by sitting on bills indefinitely, which has an impact on governance and paralyzes administrative procedures. The Supreme Court has had to step in repeatedly as a result, ruling recently that governors must act “as soon as possible” and cannot postpone bills without cause.

Institutional Issues

The fundamental structural problem is that neutrality is challenging because governors are chosen by the federal government and are not answerable to state legislatures. Committees such as the Sarkaria Commission, Punchhi Commission, and ARC have emphasized the importance of adopting conventions, ensuring non-partisan appointments, and limiting discretion.

UPSC General Studies Paper Preparation

Public Administration Optional Exam Preparation