The role of Governors in Indian states has come under scrutiny, especially concerning their interactions with elected state governments. Instances have emerged where Governors have delayed granting assent to bills passed by state legislatures, raising concerns about the potential undermining of democratically elected regimes. For example, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have approached the Supreme Court, highlighting delays in assent to legislation and other executive decisions. The Constitution mandates that Governors act on the 'aid and advice' of the Council of Ministers, yet some have exercised discretionary powers in ways that appear to obstruct state governance. The Supreme Court has emphasized that the phrase "as soon as possible" in Article 200 implies a sense of immediacy, suggesting that indefinite delays are constitutionally impermissible. Furthermore, the practice of appointing Governors as Chancellors of state universities has been questioned, with recommendations to relieve them of such roles to prevent conflicts of interest. The Justice M.M. Punchhi Commission on Centre-State relations has advocated for a national prohibition on assigning Governors the role of Chancellor in universities. These developments underscore the need to clearly define the boundaries of gubernatorial authority to ensure harmonious Centre-State relations and uphold the principles of federalism.

Questions 1.

According to the passage, what is the primary concern regarding the role of Governors in Indian states?

The role of Governors in Indian states has come under scrutiny, especially concerning their interactions with elected state governments. Instances have emerged where Governors have delayed granting assent to bills passed by state legislatures, raising concerns about the potential undermining of democratically elected regimes. For example, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have approached the Supreme Court, highlighting delays in assent to legislation and other executive decisions. The Constitution mandates that Governors act on the 'aid and advice' of the Council of Ministers, yet some have exercised discretionary powers in ways that appear to obstruct state governance. The Supreme Court has emphasized that the phrase "as soon as possible" in Article 200 implies a sense of immediacy, suggesting that indefinite delays are constitutionally impermissible. Furthermore, the practice of appointing Governors as Chancellors of state universities has been questioned, with recommendations to relieve them of such roles to prevent conflicts of interest. The Justice M.M. Punchhi Commission on Centre-State relations has advocated for a national prohibition on assigning Governors the role of Chancellor in universities. These developments underscore the need to clearly define the boundaries of gubernatorial authority to ensure harmonious Centre-State relations and uphold the principles of federalism.

Question 2.

In the context of the passage, what does the term 'discretionary powers' most closely mean?

The role of Governors in Indian states has come under scrutiny, especially concerning their interactions with elected state governments. Instances have emerged where Governors have delayed granting assent to bills passed by state legislatures, raising concerns about the potential undermining of democratically elected regimes. For example, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have approached the Supreme Court, highlighting delays in assent to legislation and other executive decisions. The Constitution mandates that Governors act on the 'aid and advice' of the Council of Ministers, yet some have exercised discretionary powers in ways that appear to obstruct state governance. The Supreme Court has emphasized that the phrase "as soon as possible" in Article 200 implies a sense of immediacy, suggesting that indefinite delays are constitutionally impermissible. Furthermore, the practice of appointing Governors as Chancellors of state universities has been questioned, with recommendations to relieve them of such roles to prevent conflicts of interest. The Justice M.M. Punchhi Commission on Centre-State relations has advocated for a national prohibition on assigning Governors the role of Chancellor in universities. These developments underscore the need to clearly define the boundaries of gubernatorial authority to ensure harmonious Centre-State relations and uphold the principles of federalism.

Question 3. 

What does the passage conclude about the relationship between Governors and state governments?

The role of Governors in Indian states has come under scrutiny, especially concerning their interactions with elected state governments. Instances have emerged where Governors have delayed granting assent to bills passed by state legislatures, raising concerns about the potential undermining of democratically elected regimes. For example, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have approached the Supreme Court, highlighting delays in assent to legislation and other executive decisions. The Constitution mandates that Governors act on the 'aid and advice' of the Council of Ministers, yet some have exercised discretionary powers in ways that appear to obstruct state governance. The Supreme Court has emphasized that the phrase "as soon as possible" in Article 200 implies a sense of immediacy, suggesting that indefinite delays are constitutionally impermissible. Furthermore, the practice of appointing Governors as Chancellors of state universities has been questioned, with recommendations to relieve them of such roles to prevent conflicts of interest. The Justice M.M. Punchhi Commission on Centre-State relations has advocated for a national prohibition on assigning Governors the role of Chancellor in universities. These developments underscore the need to clearly define the boundaries of gubernatorial authority to ensure harmonious Centre-State relations and uphold the principles of federalism.

Question 4. 

According to the passage, how might the current role of Governors adversely affect state governance?

The role of Governors in Indian states has come under scrutiny, especially concerning their interactions with elected state governments. Instances have emerged where Governors have delayed granting assent to bills passed by state legislatures, raising concerns about the potential undermining of democratically elected regimes. For example, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have approached the Supreme Court, highlighting delays in assent to legislation and other executive decisions. The Constitution mandates that Governors act on the 'aid and advice' of the Council of Ministers, yet some have exercised discretionary powers in ways that appear to obstruct state governance. The Supreme Court has emphasized that the phrase "as soon as possible" in Article 200 implies a sense of immediacy, suggesting that indefinite delays are constitutionally impermissible. Furthermore, the practice of appointing Governors as Chancellors of state universities has been questioned, with recommendations to relieve them of such roles to prevent conflicts of interest. The Justice M.M. Punchhi Commission on Centre-State relations has advocated for a national prohibition on assigning Governors the role of Chancellor in universities. These developments underscore the need to clearly define the boundaries of gubernatorial authority to ensure harmonious Centre-State relations and uphold the principles of federalism.

Question 5.

Which commission recommended that Governors should not serve as Chancellors of state universities?