President Droupadi Murmu appointed Governors for Rajasthan, Telangana, Maharashtra, Punjab, Sikkim, Meghalaya, Assam, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh on Saturday (July 28). Assam Governor Lakshman Prasad Acharya has been given the additional charge for Manipur as well.
The President of India appoints state Governors, who function as the Centre’s representatives. Here is what the post entails, according to the Indian Constitution, and why the relationship between Governors and state government becomes fraught at times.
How is the Governor of a state appointed?
Article 153 of the Indian Constitution says “There shall be a Governor for each State.” A few years after the commencement of the Constitution, an amendment in 1956 laid down that “nothing in this article shall prevent the appointment of the same person as Governor for two or more States”.
Article 155 says that the “Governor of a State shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal”. Under Article 156, “the Governor shall hold office during the pleasure of the President”, but his normal term of office will be five years.
If the President withdraws her pleasure before the completion of five years, the Governor has to step down. Since the President acts on the aid and advice of the Prime Minister and the Union Council of Ministers, in effect, the Governor is appointed and removed by the central government.

What are the qualifications for appointment as a state Governor?
Articles 157 and 158 lay down the qualifications of the Governor and the conditions of his office. The Governor must be a citizen of India and should have completed the age of 35 years. The Governor should not be a member of Parliament or a state legislature, and must not hold any other office of profit.
What is the relationship between the Governor and the state government?
The position of the Governor is envisaged as an apolitical head who must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers of the state. Article 163 states: “There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions, except in so far as he is by or under this Constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion.”
The Governor enjoys certain powers under the Constitution — such as giving or withholding assent to a Bill passed by the state legislature; determining the time needed for a party to prove its majority in the state Assembly; or, in cases such as a hung verdict in an election, which party must be called first to prove its majority — which make his position very significant.
Over the decades, Governors have been seen as acting on the behest of the central government in power at the time, and have been accused by state governments, especially those in opposition, of acting as “agents of the Centre”.
Also, the Constitution lays down no provisions for how the Governor and the state must engage publicly when there is a difference of opinion. This has traditionally been guided by respect for each other’s boundaries. Of late, however, there have been bitter and acrimonious exchanges between state governments and Governors, with Governors such as R N Ravi and Arif Mohammed Khan being accused of partisan conduct by the Chief Ministers of Tamil Nadu and Kerala respectively.
But why does such friction take place?
“Because Governors have become political appointees,” constitutional expert Dr Faizan Mustafa had told The Indian Express earlier. “The Constituent Assembly envisaged the Governor to be apolitical. But politicians become Governors and then resign to fight elections.”
Constitutional expert Alok Prasanna of Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy had said: “The CM is answerable to the people. But the Governor is answerable to no one except the Centre. You can sugarcoat it with ideas of constitutional morality and values, but the truth is there is a fundamental defect in the Constitution.”
Indeed, there is no provision for impeaching the Governor, and in the event of a particularly bitter and prolonged tussle between the state and central governments, the Centre can, for up to five years, use Raj Bhavan to indefinitely create problems for the state.
In 2001, the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution set up by the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government, had noted, “… Because the Governor owes his appointment and his continuation in the office to the Union Council of Ministers, in matters where the Central Government and the State Government do not see eye to eye, there is the apprehension that he is likely to act in accordance with the instructions, if any, received from the Union Council of Ministers… Indeed, the Governors today are being pejoratively called the ‘agents of the Centre’.”
Source: msn
Read the latest and breaking Hindi news | English News on अब पाएं सबसे निष्पक्ष, विश्वसनीय और तेज खबरें, सिर्फ WWW.THEINSIGHTTODAY.COM पर।. Get live Hindi news about India and the World from politics, sports, bollywood, business, cities, lifestyle, astrology, spirituality, jobs and much more..Read Latest News on your Mobile app so Download Mobile app The Insight Today