The Supreme Court has played a major role in defining the constitutional position, discretionary powers and limitations of the Governor.
The most important judgments cover:
For UPSC, the most important cases are:
These judgments collectively establish that:
Governor = Constitutional Head + Limited Discretion + Constitutional Accountability
The case examined the constitutional position of the:
President Governor
and the extent to which they are required to act on the:
Aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
Supreme Court Principle
The Governor is a:
Constitutional Head
and normally acts on the:
Aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
The Governor is not an independent political executive.
Discretion exists only where the Constitution specifically permits it.
UPSC Significance
Remember:
Governor → Constitutional Head
Council of Ministers → Real Executive
Aid and Advice → General Rule
Discretion → Exception
The case concerned:
Article 356 Dismissal of State Governments Governor's reports Legislative majority Federalism Judicial Review Supreme Court Principles
The Supreme Court established important limitations on the use of:
Article 356
A claim that a State Government has lost its majority should ordinarily be tested on the:
Floor of the House
rather than through the Governor's subjective assessment.
The Court also recognised:
Judicial Review of Article 356
UPSC Significance
Remember:
Majority → Floor Test
Article 356 → Judicial Review
Federalism → Basic Constitutional Principle
Governor's Report → Not Beyond Judicial Scrutiny
The case arose from the dissolution of the:
Bihar Legislative Assembly
before the Assembly could properly meet and form a government.
Key Issue
The Supreme Court examined whether the Governor's report and subsequent constitutional action were based on proper constitutional material.
Supreme Court Principle
The Governor's constitutional powers cannot be exercised:
Arbitrarily
or on the basis of:
Irrelevant or extraneous considerations.
The Court held the dissolution unconstitutional, although it did not restore the already dissolved Assembly because elections had intervened.
UPSC Significance
Remember:
Governor's Report → Subject to Judicial Review
Dissolution → Cannot be Based on Arbitrary Grounds
Constitutional Objectivity → Essential
The case concerned:
Removal of Governors
and the meaning of:
Pleasure of the President
under Article 156.
Supreme Court Principle
Although the Governor holds office during the pleasure of the President, this does not mean:
Unlimited or Arbitrary Removal Power
The power of removal cannot be exercised in an:
Arbitrary manner Capricious manner Unreasonable manner
A mere change in the Union Government or political disagreement does not automatically justify removal.
UPSC Significance
Remember:
Article 156 → Pleasure of President
but:
Pleasure ≠ Absolute Power
The case arose during a political crisis in:
Arunachal Pradesh
The Governor had advanced the Assembly session and issued directions concerning the legislative proceedings.
Key Issue
The Supreme Court examined the:
Discretionary powers of the Governor
under the Constitution.
Supreme Court Principle
The Governor cannot exercise constitutional powers:
Arbitrarily
or interfere with the functioning of the elected government and Legislature beyond constitutional limits.
The Governor's discretion is:
Constitutionally limited
UPSC Significance
Remember:
Governor ≠ Political Arbitrator
Governor's Discretion ≠ Unlimited Discretion
Legislative Process → Constitutional Protection
The judgment is also important for the constitutional relationship between the Governor, Speaker and Legislative Assembly.
The case arose during a political crisis in:
Madhya Pradesh
following the resignation of a number of MLAs and uncertainty over the government's majority.
Key Issue
The case examined whether the Governor could require a:
Floor Test
when there was material suggesting that the government may have lost majority.
Supreme Court Principle
The Court recognised that a Governor can require a floor test where there is:
Objective and relevant material
giving rise to a legitimate doubt regarding the government's majority.
UPSC Significance
Remember:
Doubt about Majority → Floor Test
Governor → May Require Floor Test
Assembly → Determines Majority
This judgment arose from the:
Maharashtra Political Crisis
of 2022.
Key Issues
The Supreme Court examined:
Governor's decision to call for a floor test Speaker's powers Disqualification proceedings Political party and legislative party issues Government formation Supreme Court Principle on Governor
The Governor cannot use a floor test merely to:
Resolve internal disputes within a political party
or to destabilise an elected government.
At the same time, the Governor is not prohibited from calling for a floor test where there are:
Serious and constitutionally relevant doubts about majority support.
The Supreme Court examined whether the Governor had relevant material for exercising the discretion.
Important Principle
The Governor should not determine:
Which faction is the legitimate political party
through the floor-test mechanism.
UPSC Significance
Remember:
Floor Test → Tests Government's Majority
Floor Test ≠ Test of Internal Party Dispute
Governor → Must Have Relevant Constitutional Material
The Supreme Court's 2023 judgment also noted that certain questions arising from the earlier Nabam Rebia ruling warranted consideration by a larger Bench.
This is an important modern judgment concerning:
Article 200
and the Governor's role in dealing with Bills passed by the State Legislature.
The Supreme Court's April 2025 judgment addressed questions concerning:
Assent to Bills Withholding assent Reservation of Bills for the President Aid and advice Judicial review Governor's constitutional discretion Delay in dealing with Bills
The official judgment records that the case involved several Bills pending before the Governor and specifically considered the constitutional questions surrounding Article 200.
Key Principle
The judgment stressed that the Governor is a:
Constitutional Head
and examined the relationship between the Governor's functions under Article 200 and the elected Council of Ministers.
Important Current-Law Caution
This area subsequently underwent further constitutional clarification.
A later Supreme Court Constitution Bench judgment in November 2025 rejected the idea that courts can prescribe a judicially created timeline whose expiry automatically results in deemed assent under Articles 200/201, describing such an approach as an impermissible substitution of executive functions by the Judiciary.
Therefore, for current UPSC notes, the safer formulation is:
Governor's action under Article 200 is constitutionally controlled and judicially reviewable, but courts cannot simply create an automatic "deemed assent" mechanism by imposing their own deadline.
Shamsher Singh — 1974
Core principle:
Governor normally acts on aid and advice.
B. Article 356
S.R. Bommai — 1994
Core principle:
Article 356 is subject to judicial review.
C. Dissolution of Assembly
Rameshwar Prasad — 2006
Core principle:
Governor's constitutional material cannot be arbitrary or irrelevant.
D. Removal of Governor
B.P. Singhal — 2010
Core principle:
Pleasure of President is not arbitrary power.
E. Governor's Discretion
Nabam Rebia — 2016
Core principle:
Governor's discretion is constitutionally limited.
F. Floor Test
Shivraj Singh Chouhan — 2020
Core principle:
Relevant objective material can justify a floor test.
G. Political Crisis + Floor Test
Subhash Desai — 2023
Core principle:
Floor test cannot be used merely to resolve internal party disputes or destabilise a government.
H. Assent to Bills
State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu — 2025
Core principle:
Article 200 must be understood within the constitutional relationship between Governor, Council of Ministers and State Legislature.
The later November 2025 Constitution Bench ruling is important when discussing the limits of judicially imposed timelines and "deemed assent."
The Supreme Court's approach can be understood as an evolution:
Shamsher Singh — 1974 ↓ Governor = Constitutional Head ↓ S.R. Bommai — 1994 ↓ Majority + Article 356 + Federalism ↓ Rameshwar Prasad — 2006 ↓ Limits on Governor's Reports ↓ B.P. Singhal — 2010 ↓ Limits on Removal ↓ Nabam Rebia — 2016 ↓ Limits on Discretion ↓ Shivraj Singh Chouhan — 2020 ↓ Floor Test ↓ Subhash Desai — 2023 ↓ Political Crisis + Governor's Discretion ↓ Tamil Nadu Governor Cases — 2025 ↓ Article 200 + Assent to Bills 12. Governor Jurisprudence — Core Principles
The important Supreme Court judgments collectively establish:
Governor is not the real political executive.
The normal rule is that the Governor acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
Discretion exists but is constitutionally constrained.
Where majority is genuinely in doubt, the Assembly is the proper forum to establish majority.
Governor's powers cannot be used to undermine State autonomy.
Gubernatorial action is not completely beyond judicial scrutiny.
Governor should not become a partisan political actor.
Governor must respect the constitutional role of the elected Legislature.
"Shamsher Singh established that the Governor is an independent political executive."
False
It established the constitutional-head model and the general rule of aid and advice.
Trap 2
"S.R. Bommai held that the Governor personally determines whether a government has majority."
False
Majority should ordinarily be tested on the floor of the House.
Trap 3
"Governor's report under Article 356 is beyond judicial review."
False
The exercise of constitutional power based on such material can be judicially reviewed.
Trap 4
"B.P. Singhal held that the President can remove a Governor arbitrarily."
False
The pleasure power cannot be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously.
Trap 5
"Nabam Rebia gave the Governor unlimited discretionary powers."
False
The judgment emphasised constitutional limits on gubernatorial discretion.
Trap 6
"Shivraj Singh Chouhan says a floor test can be ordered whenever the Opposition demands it."
False
There must be relevant and constitutionally appropriate material giving rise to doubt about majority.
Trap 7
"Subhash Desai allows the Governor to use a floor test to settle internal party disputes."
False
A floor test is meant to test the government's majority, not resolve internal party disputes.
Trap 8
"Article 200 gives the Governor an unlimited personal veto over State legislation."
False
The Governor's powers under Article 200 operate within the constitutional framework.
Shamsher Singh ↓ Aid + Advice
S.R. Bommai ↓ Floor Test + Article 356 + Federalism
Rameshwar Prasad ↓ Governor's Report + Dissolution
B.P. Singhal ↓ Removal of Governor
Nabam Rebia ↓ Limited Discretion
Shivraj Singh Chouhan ↓ Floor Test
Subhash Desai ↓ Political Crisis + Floor Test
Tamil Nadu Governor Cases ↓ Article 200 + Bills 16. One-Line Memory Trick
Remember:
"Advice → Bommai → Dissolution → Removal → Discretion → Floor Test → Political Crisis → Bills"
Advice → Shamsher Singh Bommai → Article 356 + Floor Test Dissolution → Rameshwar Prasad Removal → B.P. Singhal Discretion → Nabam Rebia Floor Test → Shivraj Singh Chouhan Political Crisis → Subhash Desai Bills → Tamil Nadu Governor cases 17. Mains Answer Framework
For a question on:
"Discuss the Supreme Court's role in defining the Governor's constitutional position."
Use this structure:
Introduction
The Governor is a constitutional head whose powers operate within India's parliamentary and federal framework.
Body
Shamsher Singh
S.R. Bommai
Rameshwar Prasad
B.P. Singhal
Nabam Rebia
Shivraj Singh Chouhan
Subhash Desai
Tamil Nadu Governor cases
Conclusion
The Supreme Court has attempted to maintain the balance between:
Governor's Constitutional Discretion + Democratic Mandate + Federalism + Legislative Accountability
The Supreme Court's Governor jurisprudence demonstrates a consistent constitutional objective:
Prevent the transformation of a constitutional office into a political office.
The Court has progressively emphasised:
Constitutional neutrality Legislative majority Federalism Judicial review Responsible government Limited discretion
At the same time, the Court recognises that the Governor requires some discretion to deal with exceptional constitutional situations.
Therefore, the ideal relationship is:
Discretion where necessary + Restraint where possible + Accountability always
For UPSC, the eight most important Governor judgments can be remembered as:
1974 — Shamsher Singh Governor = Constitutional Head
1994 — S.R. Bommai Floor Test + Article 356 + Federalism
2006 — Rameshwar Prasad Limits on Dissolution
2010 — B.P. Singhal Limits on Governor's Removal
2016 — Nabam Rebia Limits on Governor's Discretion
2020 — Shivraj Singh Chouhan Floor Test on Relevant Material
2023 — Subhash Desai Governor + Political Crisis
2025 — State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor Article 200 + Assent to Bills
The overarching principle is:
Governor's Power → Constitutional
Governor's Discretion → Limited
Governor's Action → Judicially Reviewable where constitutionally appropriate
Legislative Majority → Floor of the House
Governor → Constitutional Head, Not Political Ruler
The 2025 Tamil Nadu Governor judgment and subsequent constitutional clarification are especially important for keeping this topic current; the Supreme Court's official judgments should be preferred for the latest position.
