In India’s federal structure, where democracy often runs on the wheels of party politics, the office of the Governor plays an underappreciated yet crucial role. While the real executive power in a state rests with the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister, the Governor is no mere ceremonial figure. The constitutional framework vests the Governor with key responsibilities designed to ensure checks and balances, especially in times when a single party wields overwhelming power.
The position of the Governor is defined across Articles 153 to 167 of the Indian Constitution, falling under Part VI, which deals with the state executive. Notably, Articles 154, 163, and 164 lay the foundation of the Governor’s authority. Article 154 vests the executive power of the state in the Governor. Article 163 requires the Governor to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in matters where the Constitution requires him to act at his discretion. And Article 164 makes the Chief Minister and Council of Ministers collectively responsible to the legislative assembly but appointed by the Governor.
This delicate balance—where the Governor is both advised and yet at times independent—ensures that the spirit of federalism and constitutional propriety are upheld. While many see this as a symbolic role, the necessity of the Governor becomes glaring in cases where elected governments, especially those with brute majority, overstep boundaries.
Nowhere is this tension more visible than in the realm of higher education governance. Increasingly, state governments—irrespective of political affiliations—have sought to wrest control of universities by removing the Governor from the role of Chancellor and installing the Chief Minister or a political appointee instead. This may seem administrative on the surface, but it’s an insidious shift that risks undermining academic integrity and institutional independence.
The role of the Chancellor, typically held by the Governor, ensures a buffer between party politics and the functioning of universities. Vice-chancellor appointments, under gubernatorial scrutiny, have traditionally been subject to merit and transparency. However, when Chief Ministers attempt to usurp this role, as witnessed in states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala, the appointment process becomes politically charged, leading to partisanship and a loss of academic objectivity.
Such moves aren’t just legally questionable—they’re potentially unconstitutional. They threaten to politicize academia and erode institutional checks. If state governments continue down this path, we might well see universities becoming echo chambers of the ruling party rather than bastions of free thought.
This is where the Governor’s constitutional independence matters. The Governor’s office ensures that elected governments do not reduce their state into personal fiefdoms—something India struggled to dismantle post-independence. One must recall the enormous efforts of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, India’s first Home Minister, who coaxed, convinced, and, when necessary, compelled princely states to join the Indian Union. Any sign of elected dynasties recreating that fragmented era, even subtly, must be checked.
Yes, in my view, the Supreme Court was right to reprimand Governors who sit on bills indefinitely, thereby obstructing governance. Such conduct undermines the democratic mandate.
But judicial intervention must also acknowledge the other extreme: political efforts to reduce the Governor to a rubber stamp—or eliminate their oversight. When an MP publicly asserts that the Governor should “cease” being Chancellor, we must pause and ask: Are we weakening a vital pillar of democratic accountability?
As a journalist, I can’t help but wonder: in a country where party lines often override institutional integrity, doesn’t the Governor’s role—particularly in education and constitutional propriety—become indispensable?
The office may be apolitical, but it is not powerless. It exists not to obstruct governance but to preserve balance, especially when majoritarian tendencies threaten democratic institutions.
Let’s not forget that democracy without guardrails is just a popularity contest. And the Governor, functioning within constitutional bounds, is one of those essential guardrails.
