Governor and Appointment of Governor

The Constitution of India envisages the same pattern of government in the states as that for the Centre, that is, a parliamentary system. Part VI of the Constitution, which deals with the government in the states, is not applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, which enjoys a special status and has a separate Constitution of its own.
       Articles 153 to 167 in Part VI of the Constitution deal with the state executive. The state executive consists of the governor, the chief minister, the council of ministers and the advocate general of the state. Thus, there is no office of vice-governor (in the state) like that of Vice-President at the Centre.
     The governor is the chief executive head of the state. But, like the president, he is a nominal executive head (titular or constitutional head). The governor also acts as an agent of the central government. Therefore, the office of governor has a dual role.
   Usually, there is a governor for each state, but the 7th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1956 facilitated the appointment of the same person as a governor for two or more states.
Appointment of Governor
The governor is neither directly elected by the people nor indirectly elected by a specially constituted electoral college as is the case with the president.
       He is appointed by the president by warrant under his hand and seal. In a way, he is a nominee of the Central government. But, as held by the Supreme Court in 1979, the office of governor of a state is not an employment under the Central government. It is an independent constitutional office and is not under the control of or subordinate to the Central government.
     The Draft Constitution provided for the direct election of the governor on the basis of universal adult suffrage. But the Constituent Assembly opted for the present system of appointment of governor by the president because of the following reasons:

1. The direct election of the governor is incompatible with the parliamentary system established in the states.
2. The mode of direct election is more likely to create conflicts between the governor and the chief minister.
3. The governor being only a constitutional (nominal) head, there is no point in making elaborate arrangements for his election and spending huge amount of money.
4. The election of a governor would be entirely on personal issues. Hence, it is not in the national interest to involve a large number of voters in such an election.
5. An elected governor would naturally belong to a party and would not be a neutral person and an impartial head.
6. The election of governor would create separatist tendencies and thus affect the political stability and unity of the country.
7. The system of presidential nomination enables the Centre to maintain its control over the states.
8. The direct election of the governor creates a serious problem of leadership at the time of a general election in the state.
9. The chief minister would like his nominee to contest for governorship. Hence, a second rate man of the ruling party is elected as governor.

    Therefore, the American model, where the Governor of a state is directly elected, was dropped and the Canadian model, where the governor of a province (state) is appointed by the Governor-General (Centre), was accepted in the Constituent Assembly.
   The Constitution lays down only two qualifications for the appointment of a person as a governor. These are:

1. He should be a citizen of India.
2. He should have completed the age of 35 years.

   Additionally, two conventions have also developed in this regard over the years. First, he should be an outsider, that is, he should not belong to the state where he is appointed, so that he is free from the local politics. Second, while appointing the governor, the president is required to consult the chief minister of the state concerned, so that the smooth functioning of the constitutional machinery in the state is ensured. However, both the conventions have been violated in some of the cases.