Former Supreme Court Justice Rohinton Nariman, speaking at the 7th M K Nambiar Endowment Lecture at the NUJS Law University, addressed the contentious role of a state governor, suggesting the healthy constitutional conventions, rather than a constitutional amendment, could resolve issues of political bias.
The lecture titled “The Role of the Governor of a State: Watchdog of the Centre or a Meaningful Head of State?”, was held on September 19 at the university’s auditorium.
“When India became a sovereign democratic republic, the first thing we did was to shake off the British crown and substitute an elected president for a hereditary monarch. One would have thought that governors, as heads of the states, would be a microcosm of the president. But that was not to be,” he said, contrasting the careful constitutional protections around the office of the president with the different treatment of governors under Part IV of the Constitution.
Articles 53 and 54 show that the founding fathers took care to ensure the President was elected indirectly by members of Parliament. The Lok Sabha represents the people, while the Rajya Sabha represents the states. The electoral college includes not only members of both houses but also all elected state MLAs. This is significant. Article 55 further ensures that about half the votes for the President come from Parliament and about half from all the states combined. Although there are now 28 states, there were fewer when this was established, and article 55 provides a mathematical formula to balance the votes accordingly, he explained.
After the session, Justice Nariman responded to a question about whether governors might show bias toward the central government, especially if a different party holds power in the state.
“According to me, all of this would require a constitutional amendment, which is impossible. Rather than a constitutional amendment, something can be done through convention, which is another source of constitutional law. Perhaps a healthy convention could grow in the future. I don’t see a constitutional amendment happening in a hurry. However, we can repeatedly refer to the oath that the governor has to take and emphasize that their allegiance is not to the Centre that appoints them but to the Constitution and the people of the state,” he said
Justice Nariman emphasized that the governor’s oath is often overlooked. “We can refer repeatedly to the oath that the governor has to take and emphasize that its adherence is not to the Centre that appoints it but to the Constitution and people of the constitution,” he explained.
Nariman said that governors have powers that are “beyond the President” performing, “ important functions which even a President cannot perform sometimes.” He expressed a strong desire for healthy constitutional conventions to be established.
“Under article 56, the term of office of the president is five years and importantly he can only be removed from office by way of impeachment which is an extremely difficult process and impeachment for what? For violating any provision of the constitution. His oath in fact under article 16 makes it clear that he has to abide by the constitution and that he would seek to see that the welfare of the people as a whole is again now with these provisions for the president. Why was there something different for the governors? he added.
There can be multiple states, each with their own governors, and the relationship can work both ways. The key distinction arises from Articles 154, 155, and 156, which state that governors are appointed by the president rather than elected. Although a draft article (Article 131) in the constitution initially proposed elections for governors, it was ultimately dropped. The framers of the constitution were concerned that an elected governor might clash with an elected prime minister. As a result, governors are appointed, and Article 156 introduces an unusual provision: governors serve at the pleasure of the president, meaning they can be hired or dismissed at any time. In practice, this allows the president to appoint a governor one day and remove them the next, even though the official term is supposed to be five years, Nariman explained.
“And this is despite the fact that his oath, which is the governor’s oath, actually parallels that of the president. It is very important to remember that the governor is equally bound to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and to serve the people of the state,” Nariman said. He pointed out the anomaly that, while the oath mirrors the president’s duties, the appointment process for governors remains entirely in the hands of the Centre rather than the people or the state legislature.
Nariman said he hoped political parties would evolve conventions to protect the neutrality of the governor’s office. “I would firmly wish constitutional conventions could be laid down by a party in power. It can only happen if a party in opposition becomes a party in power and vice versa,” he added. He suggested that conventions might, for example, bar the appointment of active politicians as governors so that the oath’s spirit is respected in practice.
On the contentious issue of governors withholding assent to bills passed by state legislatures, Nariman referred to an ongoing presidential reference and said it was “obvious that a governor cannot sit indefinitely on a bill.” He urged a pragmatic solution: either the courts should fix a time limit or declare that inaction beyond a reasonable period would permit judicial intervention to compel a governor to act.
Nariman contrasted the protections around the president’s office with those governing governors. While the president is elected by an electoral college and enjoys a fixed term with difficult impeachment provisions, governors have long been appointed “at the pleasure” of the president, a formulation that historically allowed arbitrary removal. That, he said, underlines why conventions and safeguards are urgently needed.
He recalled the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling, often cited as a corrective to unfettered removals, which established that removals of governors could not be arbitrary or mala fide. “It was clearly laid down that if you are merely out of sync with the Centre’s policies, that would not be grounds for removal because it would be antithetical to the governor’s oath,” Nariman said, underlining that such removals are now subject to judicial review and must be supported by good and compelling reasons.
Nariman argued that judicial review remains an important backstop. “If challenged, there has to be just cause,” he said, adding that while the appointment process still raises concerns, at least the removal mechanism has been partly safeguarded by constitutional law and court oversight.
Concluding his remarks, Nariman reiterated his preference for evolving conventions over constitutional amendments, noting the practical difficulty of securing amendments. He urged political actors to respect the governor’s oath and to build norms that preserve the office’s constitutional independence while ensuring accountability through the courts.