state two discretionary powers of the governor?
Answers
Answer:
here is your answer;-)
Explanation:
When no party gets a clear majority, the governor has discretion to choose a candidate for chief minister who will put together a majority coalition as soon as possible.
The two discretionary powers of governor are as follows:-
1.He can impose president's rule.
2. He can withhold his assent to a bill and send it to the president for his approval.
Answer:
Explanation:
This article examines the scope of discretionary powers of governor of a state in India from federal perspective and argues that they are against the principle of ‘cabinet responsibility’, an essential feature of parliamentary form of government that India intertwined with the federal constitution. These apparent anachronistic constitutional provisions were inherited from the Government of India Act, 1935, and retained with some modifications in the Constitution of Independent India as an institutional safeguard for the unity and integrity of Union of India that was formed by the merger of more than 500 princely states and a number of British administered provinces.
As against the intentions of the constitution makers, the use of discretionary powers by governors has remained short of constitutional propriety, and it has been a major source of tension in centre–state relations. This has been partly because of the scope of powers itself and partly because of political factors. This article adds to various attempts of defining the scope of discretionary powers of the governor. A governor, appointed on political considerations, flippantly sets aside norms, values and constitutional propriety, expected of him in exercise of his/her powers. The lack of tenurial security makes him susceptible to the pressure of the union government. Only through political consensus, a solution can be found out to resolve this tricky issue of Indian federalism.
The office of governor predates Independence and formed an important part of the British colonial administration at the province level, also called the governor’s provinces under the Government of India Acts, 1919 and 1935. Pre-Independence governors enjoyed enormous amount of power over subjects devolved to provinces and were accountable only to the governor-general and through him to the secretary of state, that is, British Parliament. Sorabjee (1985, p. 13) describes the all-powerful position of the governor before Independence as ‘in reality a constitutional dictator, an autocrat over provincial despotism’. The Government of India Act, 1919, known as Montagu–Chelmsford reform, was the first major attempt in the direction of provincial autonomy, and it introduced an embryonic form of responsible government in provinces through a system of ‘diarchy’. Legislative subjects devolved to the provinces were divided into two categories—‘reserved’ and ‘transferred’. The reserved subjects, such as law and order, justice and natural resources, were to be governed by the governor-in-council and transferred subjects, such as education, health, municipal and local governance, were to be administered by the governor with the aid and advice of the council of ministers, although the former (governor) retained the power to override the decisions of his council of ministers, even in the case of transferred subjects.
The Government of India Act, 1935, improved upon the 1919 Act in terms of devolution of power to provinces. It gave them greater autonomy, more power to elected governments in provinces and made provisions for the establishment of a federal government at the centre. Before the 1935 Act, the governor of a province was the real head of the executive. The 1935 Act introduced a limited form of responsible government in governor’s provinces. It made provisions for a council of ministers to aid and advise the governor in exercise of his functions. Governor’s powers were to be exercised by him by dividing them into three categories, which were: (a) exclusive jurisdiction of the governor, that is, special responsibilities, (b) power to be exercised on his own discretion and (c) on the advice of the council of ministers, with a proviso to override the decisions of the council of ministers. Governors also enjoyed legislative and financial powers. Although, the 1935 Act, in comparison to the 1919 Act, devolved more power to the responsible government, yet the governor retained overall supremacy in the constitutional arrangement.