Signs of a confrontation between Raj Bhavan and the elected government in a State are not infrequent in the country. The onus often appears to be on the Chief Ministers to avert a constitutional crisis, as evidenced by trying to buy peace with a miffed Governor, rather than pursue a confrontational course, over several issues in recent times. One way of seeing these developments is to attribute them to the appointment of those who have been politically active in the recent past as Governors and the partisan role they play as agents of the Centre. Constrained by the ‘aid and advice’ clause in their routine functioning, some Governors seem to be using the discretionary space available to them to keep regimes on tenterhooks.

While as the ‘lynchpin’ of the constitutional apparatus, Governors indeed have a duty to defend the Constitution and encourage or caution the elected regime, the impression that Governors are not obliged to heed Cabinet advice persists in some areas. At a time when regional political forces are actively seeking to be heard by the Centre, it may be time that the provisions relating to the Governor’s role are amended. Identifying areas of discretion, fixing a time-frame for them to act, and making it explicit that they are obliged to go by Cabinet advice on dealing with Bills can be considered. Regarding Bills, it is clear that the Constituent Assembly passed the provision for Governors to return Bills for reconsideration only on the express assurance that they have no discretion at all.