Governor-State Government Conflicts
Constitutional and Political Dimensions
Centre-state friction over the Governor's role has been a persistent feature of Indian federalism, particularly when different parties govern at the Centre and in a state. The Sarkaria Commission (1988) recommended that the Governor should be an eminent person from outside the state and not intimately connected with the local politics of the state. The Punchhi Commission on Centre-State Relations (2010) went further, recommending a fixed five-year tenure and removal only through a resolution by the state legislature.
- Sarkaria Commission (1988): Recommended that the Governor should be appointed after consultation with the Chief Minister; should be from outside the state; should not be changed on change of government at the Centre
- Punchhi Commission (2010): Recommended fixed 5-year tenure for Governors; deletion of the phrase "during the pleasure of the President" from Article 156; removal only through state legislature resolution
- B.P. Singhal v. Union of India (2010): Supreme Court held that the President cannot remove a Governor in an arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable manner; the power under Article 156(1) must be exercised for valid reasons
- Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006): Supreme Court struck down the dissolution of Bihar Assembly on the Governor's recommendation as unconstitutional
- Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016): Supreme Court restricted the Governor's discretionary powers, holding that the Governor cannot act as an adversary of the elected government
● Tracked since March 05, 2026 · last seen March 05, 2026 · updates as the daily brief publishes
See it in today’s brief.
Daily current affairs with every static concept explained in place.
Read the daily brief