BharatNotes What is Governor's Discretionary Powers?
A Governor of an Indian State normally acts on the aid and advice of the State Council of Ministers. Article 163(1), however, carves out an exception: the Governor may act in his own discretion wherever the Constitution "by or under" it requires him to do so. Article 163(2) makes the Governor the judge of whether a matter falls within his discretion and declares his decision final, and Article 163(3) bars courts from inquiring into what advice ministers tendered.
A crucial point for the exam: the Governor enjoys discretion that the President does not. The word "discretion" appears in Article 163 but not in the corresponding Article 74 governing the President.
Categories of Discretion
Discretion is broadly of two kinds — expressly stated in the Constitution, and "situational" discretion flowing from convention.
| Type | Examples |
|---|---|
| Constitutional (express) | Reserving a Bill for the President under Article 200; recommending President's Rule under Article 356; functions as administrator of an adjoining UT |
| Special provisions | Discretionary responsibilities of Governors of certain States (e.g. Article 371-A for Nagaland on law and order) |
| Situational (by convention) | Appointing a Chief Minister in a hung Assembly; dismissing a ministry that has lost majority; summoning, proroguing or dissolving the Assembly in disputed circumstances |
Assent to Bills: the 2025 Position
Article 200 gives the Governor four options on a Bill — assent, withhold assent, return a non-Money Bill for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President. The extent of discretion here was litigated in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (judgment of 08 April 2025), where a two-judge Bench attempted to fix timelines and recognised a "deemed assent."
That position was effectively reset by the Supreme Court's advisory opinion on the Presidential Reference, delivered on 20 November 2025 by a five-judge Constitution Bench led by CJI B.R. Gavai. The Court held that decisions of the Governor and President under Articles 200 and 201 are not justiciable on merits, that courts cannot impose fixed timelines or read in "deemed assent," yet Governors cannot indefinitely delay Bills.
Significance and Reform
The office has long been criticised for partisan use, prompting reform proposals. The Sarkaria Commission (1983–88) recommended a clear order of preference for inviting a Chief Minister in a hung Assembly — first a pre-poll alliance, then the largest single party with support, then a post-poll coalition — and urged that Article 356 be used "very sparingly" as a last resort. The Punchhi Commission later echoed and extended these safeguards.
UPSC Angle
Examiners value precision here: the exact wording of Article 163, the Governor-versus-President distinction, the Article 200/201 framework, and the federal implications of the 2025 ruling. Link this term to Centre-State relations, the Sarkaria/Punchhi reports, and Article 356 for a complete answer. For current-affairs depth, cross-reference assent-related developments on Ujiyari.com.
