The relationship between the President and the Governor with their respective Councils of Ministers is a fundamental aspect of constitutional law, underpinning the executive authority and functioning within a parliamentary democracy. Both offices represent a blend of ceremonial dignity and constitutional duty, playing a crucial role in the governance of India’s Union and State structures. While their roles and powers are generally symbolic, the President and Governors possess discretionary powers, which they exercise in specific circumstances. This relationship is guided by constitutional provisions, particularly in Articles 74, 75, 163, and 164, and has been shaped through landmark judgments and conventions developed over time.
The President and the Council of Ministers
The President of India, as outlined in Article 52 of the Constitution, is the ceremonial head of the Union, embodying the unity and integrity of the nation. Although the President holds the highest executive authority in theory, their powers are typically exercised on the advice of the Council of Ministers, as per Article 74(1). The principle of responsible government mandates that the Council of Ministers, headed by the Prime Minister, is accountable to the Lok Sabha (the lower house of Parliament), which ensures the balance of power in this relationship.
i) Article 74 and the Binding Nature of Advice
Article 74(1) mandates that the President must act based on the advice of the Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head. However, prior to the 42nd Amendment in 1976, there was ambiguity about whether the President could reject or reconsider this advice. The amendment clarified the binding nature of the Council’s advice, reducing any uncertainty. Furthermore, Article 74(2) bars judicial review of this advice, protecting the confidentiality and autonomy of executive decisions.
The Supreme Court has addressed this relationship in various rulings. The landmark case of Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) held that the President is expected to act as per the advice of the Council of Ministers. Justice Krishna Iyer opined that the President is constitutionally obligated to follow ministerial advice, while also recognizing their “discretionary” authority under specific circumstances. This case clarified that, although bound by ministerial advice, the President is not a mere "rubber stamp" and can request the Council to reconsider its decisions.
ii) Discretionary Powers of the President
The Constitution provides limited scope for the President’s discretion, particularly in circumstances where ministerial advice is unavailable or unclear. For example, in cases such as appointing a Prime Minister when no single party has a clear majority or in dissolving the Lok Sabha on the advice of the Prime Minister, the President can exercise discretion to ensure stability and adherence to democratic principles. Such situations emphasize the President’s role as a constitutional guardian rather than an active policymaker.
In R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court examined the President’s power concerning Article 356, which allows the President to impose President's Rule in states if the state government cannot function according to constitutional provisions. The Court ruled that such discretion is limited to ensuring constitutional compliance, underscoring the importance of judicial review to prevent misuse of this power.
The Governor and the Council of Ministers
The Governor, as the executive head of a state, functions in a manner similar to the President but at the state level. Article 153 provides for the appointment of a Governor in each state, who acts on the advice of the state’s Council of Ministers, led by the Chief Minister. The Governor’s relationship with the Council of Ministers is outlined in Articles 163 and 164, establishing a dynamic parallel to the President’s relationship with the Union Council of Ministers.
i) Article 163 and Discretionary Powers of the Governor
Article 163 states that the Governor must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers except when exercising their discretion. This raises the question of when and how the Governor’s discretion applies. While Governors are typically bound by the advice of the state’s Council of Ministers, certain matters allow for discretionary power. Notably, the Sarkaria Commission report in 1988 emphasized that such discretion should be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances to maintain the federal balance.
One example of discretionary power is the Governor’s ability to appoint a Chief Minister when no party has an absolute majority in the legislative assembly, as witnessed in several hung assemblies across India. The Governor’s discretion also applies to reserving bills for the President’s consideration under Article 200 and in instances where state governments are unable to function as per the Constitution’s provisions, invoking Article 356.
ii) Judicial Interpretations and Landmark Judgments
Judicial pronouncements have further delineated the Governor’s relationship with the state’s Council of Ministers. In Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974), the Supreme Court clarified that the Governor must ordinarily act on the advice of the Council of Ministers and exercise discretion sparingly. In Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (2016), the Court emphasized that while the Governor holds certain discretionary powers, these must not be arbitrary and should respect the democratic mandate of the elected representatives.
The Bommai case extended its principles to the Governor’s actions, emphasizing federalism and the need to respect the elected state government. The Court held that the Governor should not use discretionary powers to undermine the Council of Ministers, reinforcing that any imposition of President’s Rule requires objective assessment and judicial review.
The Role of Conventions and Moral Authority
Beyond the Constitution’s text, conventions play a significant role in the relationship between the President, Governors, and their Councils of Ministers. Conventions, such as the appointment of the Prime Minister or Chief Minister, uphold democratic values by ensuring the head of the executive is a person who commands the majority in the legislature. While conventions lack formal legal enforceability, they promote the smooth functioning of parliamentary democracy and prevent constitutional crises.
For instance, it is conventionally expected that the President will appoint the leader of the majority party as the Prime Minister following general elections. Similarly, the Governor appoints the Chief Minister who has majority support in the legislative assembly. Deviations from these conventions have historically led to political controversy and legal challenges, such as in the S. R. Bommai case and, more recently, in instances involving coalition politics.
i) Situational Challenges and the Role of Moral Authority:
The relationship between these constitutional heads and their Councils of Ministers is not without challenges. Political dynamics often test the neutrality of the President and Governors, placing them in situations that require balancing constitutional duty with moral authority. Discretionary power, though limited, occasionally confronts situations where constitutional provisions are open to interpretation. In such cases, the President or Governor’s moral authority becomes crucial for maintaining the legitimacy of their office.
Situations where minority governments, coalition politics, or internal party disputes create ambiguity about majority support in the legislature call for prudence from both the President and Governors. For instance, Governors have been criticized in some states for delaying legislative assembly sessions or dissolving assemblies under questionable circumstances, raising concerns over partisan behavior.
Conclusion
The relationship between the President, Governors, and their respective Councils of Ministers reflects the core principles of parliamentary democracy and federalism embedded within the Indian Constitution. Though the President and Governors function as constitutional heads with a largely symbolic role, they possess discretionary powers meant to protect the constitutional order. The checks and balances provided by judicial interpretation, particularly through landmark cases like Shamsher Singh and Bommai, have reinforced the limits of their discretionary authority, ensuring it aligns with democratic values.
While Article 74 and Article 163 outline the guiding framework for the relationship between these constitutional heads and their Councils, conventions, moral authority, and prudence continue to play a vital role. This dynamic underscores the delicate balance between authority and restraint, ensuring that both the President and Governors serve as dignified custodians of the Constitution, upholding democratic governance at both the Union and State levels. In essence, the harmonious interplay of advice, discretion, and moral authority fosters a resilient and functional parliamentary democracy in India.
.png)
.png)
.png)
