The Supreme Court expressed displeasure at the governors holding key bills especially in non-BJP ruled states such as Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Telangana, until state governments approach the top court for intervention.

Delay by governors to sign a bill

The delay by Governors to sign a bill can sometimes be a source of concern, as it may result in the bill not becoming law within a reasonable timeframe. There can be various reasons for such delays, and they may have political, legal, or administrative implications. Here are some common reasons for delays in bill signing by Governors:

1. Legal Review: Governors, like the President of India at the national level, have a duty to ensure that the bills presented to them for assent comply with the Constitution and do not violate any legal provisions. This may involve a legal review to ascertain the bill's constitutionality. In complex cases, this review can cause delays.
2. Political Considerations: Governors are often appointed by the central government and may have political affiliations. Sometimes, political considerations or disagreements with the state government can lead to delays in bill signing. Governors are expected to act impartially, but political factors may still influence their decision-making.
3. Reference to the President: If there are concerns about the constitutionality or legality of a bill, the Governor may seek guidance from the President of India. This reference to the President can add time to the process.
4. Public and Stakeholder Input: In some cases, Governors may delay signing a bill to allow for public or stakeholder input and discussion. This can happen when a bill is particularly contentious, and the Governor wishes to ensure that all perspectives are considered.
5. Conflict with Central Laws: If a bill passed by a state legislature is in conflict with any law made by Parliament, the Governor may need to follow a particular process, including sending the bill to the President for consideration. This can introduce delays.
6. Administrative Process: The administrative process of bill review and documentation can sometimes be time-consuming, particularly if there are a large number of bills to be reviewed.

It's important to note that while Governors have the power to delay the signing of a bill for the above-mentioned reasons, they are generally expected to act within the framework of the Constitution and in accordance with the advice of the Council of Ministers in the state. In most cases, Governors do not unreasonably delay bill signing, and the process typically proceeds efficiently. However, if there are concerns about undue delays, legal remedies or political processes may be pursued to address the issue.

The Governor of a state in India plays a vital role as the ceremonial head of the state and as the representative of the President of India at the state level. The Governor's role is largely defined by the Constitution of India, and their powers and functions are outlined in this context. Here are the key roles and functions of a Governor of a state:

1. Constitutional Head of the State: The Governor is the ceremonial head of the state and represents the President of India within the state. The Governor's role is similar to that of the President at the national level.
2. Executive Powers:
• The Governor appoints the Chief Minister of the state, who is the head of the state government, based on the recommendations of the majority party or coalition in the state legislature.
• The Governor appoints other members of the state Council of Ministers on the advice of the Chief Minister.
3. Legislative Powers:
• The Governor summons and prorogues the sessions of the state legislative assembly.
• The Governor addresses the legislative assembly at the beginning of each session, outlining the government's policies and priorities.
• The Governor gives assent to bills passed by the state legislative assembly, turning them into law. However, this is typically done on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
• The Governor can reserve certain bills for the consideration of the President if they believe the bills are in conflict with central laws or the Constitution.
4. Discretionary Powers:
• While most of the Governor's powers are exercised on the advice of the Council of Ministers, they do have some discretionary powers, such as the ability to request clarification or more information from the Chief Minister.
• In certain circumstances, the Governor can use their discretion, such as when no party or coalition has a clear majority in the state assembly, and they must decide on the formation of the government.
5. Judicial Powers:
• The Governor appoints judges of the state high court in consultation with the Chief Justice of India and the Governor of the respective state.
• The Governor can grant pardons, reprieves, and respites in certain cases, as per the advice of the Council of Ministers.
6. Emergency Powers:
• The Governor can assume executive powers in the state during a breakdown of the constitutional machinery, such as a situation of political instability or law and order problems. This is done on the advice of the President.
7. Communication with the President: The Governor regularly communicates with the President and provides information about the state's governance and issues.
8. Representative and Diplomatic Role: The Governor represents the state in various official and ceremonial functions, including welcoming visiting dignitaries.
9. Guardian of the Constitution: The Governor has a role in safeguarding the Constitution and ensuring that the state government operates within its constitutional limits.

Conflicts between a state government and the Governor of that state in the signing of bills can arise when there are differences in interpretation of the constitutional roles and powers of each entity. Here are some scenarios that can lead to conflicts in the signing of bills:

1. Withholding Assent: The Governor has the power to withhold assent to a bill passed by the state legislative assembly if they have concerns about the bill's constitutionality, legality, or compliance with central laws. This may lead to conflicts if the state government believes the bill is within the state's legislative competence.
2. Political Disagreements: Conflicts may arise if there are political disagreements between the state government and the Governor. The Governor is expected to act in a non-partisan manner, but if the perception is that the Governor is motivated by political considerations, tensions can develop.
3. Public Welfare vs. Legal Concerns: The Governor may have concerns about the impact of a bill on public welfare, while the state government may prioritize the immediate benefits the bill offers. Conflicts can occur if the Governor believes the bill is legally flawed and may face legal challenges.
4. Constitutional Issues: Conflicts can arise if the Governor believes that the bill infringes upon constitutional principles or interferes with the division of powers between the state and the center.
5. Referring Bills to the President: If the Governor believes that a bill passed by the state legislative assembly is in conflict with any central law or involves issues of national importance, they may refer the bill to the President of India for consideration. This can lead to disputes over whether such a reference is justified.
6. Discretionary Powers: The exercise of discretionary powers by the Governor, such as reserving a bill for the consideration of the President, can lead to conflicts if the state government views this as undue interference in the state's legislative process.
7. Legal Challenge: The state government may challenge the Governor's decision in court, leading to legal battles that can prolong the process and exacerbate tensions.

It's important to note that the Governor's role in signing bills is largely ceremonial, and they are expected to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers in the state. However, conflicts can still arise, especially in situations where there are differences in interpretation of constitutional provisions, legal considerations, and political dynamics. Resolution of such conflicts may involve legal remedies, political negotiations, and recourse to constitutional provisions, as well as the involvement of the President of India in certain cases.

Conflicts between a state government and the Governor of that state can arise due to differing interpretations of constitutional roles, political differences, or issues related to the exercise of discretionary powers. Here are some common areas of conflict between state governments and Governors in India:

1. Government Formation:
• One of the most common areas of conflict occurs during government formation. When no single party or coalition has a clear majority in the state legislative assembly, the Governor plays a crucial role in determining which party or coalition should be invited to form the government. Decisions made by Governors in such situations can lead to disputes and allegations of bias.
2. Discretionary Powers:
• The discretionary powers of Governors, particularly in matters such as government formation, proroguing or dissolving the legislative assembly, or withholding assent to bills, can lead to conflicts if the Governor's decisions are seen as politically motivated or inconsistent with constitutional norms.
3. Summoning of the Legislative Assembly:
• The Governor has the authority to summon the state legislative assembly. There can be disputes when the Chief Minister advises the Governor to summon the assembly, but the Governor delays or refuses to do so.
4. Appointment of Key Officials:
• The Governor has a role in the appointment of key officials in the state, including the Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police. Disagreements can arise when the Chief Minister and the Governor have different preferences for these appointments.
5. Law and Order Situations:
• Conflicts may emerge in situations involving law and order, where the state government may request the Governor's intervention, particularly if there is a perception that the state government is not handling a crisis effectively.
6. Dispute Resolution Mechanisms:
• There can be conflicts related to the use and effectiveness of dispute resolution mechanisms provided by the Constitution when disputes arise between the state government and the Governor.
7. Public Statements:
• Governors occasionally make public statements or take positions on political matters, which can lead to conflicts with the state government, as Governors are expected to maintain a largely ceremonial and apolitical role.
8. Interference in State Affairs:
• Accusations of Governors interfering in state affairs or unduly favoring the central government's interests can create tensions with state governments.
9. Cooperative Federalism:
• Disputes can also arise from differences in interpretation of the principles of cooperative federalism, as the Governor is seen as a representative of the central government in the state.
10. Political Considerations:
• In some cases, conflicts may be driven by political considerations, especially when the Governor's appointment is perceived as politically motivated or influenced by the central government.

The Sarkaria Commission, officially known as the "Commission on Centre-State Relations," was a commission established by the Government of India in 1983 to examine and make recommendations on various aspects of center-state relations. One of the key areas the Sarkaria Commission examined was the role and responsibilities of Governors in Indian states. The commission was named after its chairman, Justice R.S. Sarkaria.

The Sarkaria Commission made several recommendations related to the Governor's role in the Indian federal system. Some of the key recommendations included:

1. Appointment of Governors:
• The Commission recommended that the appointment of Governors should be made by the President in consultation with the Chief Minister of the state. This was aimed at ensuring a consultative process and reducing the perception of Governors as purely political appointees.
2. Fixed Terms for Governors:
• The commission suggested that Governors should have a fixed term, typically five years, to provide stability and reduce the likelihood of frequent changes based on political considerations.
3. Discretionary Powers:
• The commission recommended that Governors should exercise their discretion sparingly and that their discretionary powers should be clearly defined in the Constitution.
4. Consultation with the Chief Minister:
• The commission emphasized that the Governor should act on the advice of the Council of Ministers in the state, particularly the Chief Minister, unless there are extraordinary circumstances.
5. Role in Government Formation:
• The commission outlined guidelines for the Governor's role in government formation in cases where no party or coalition has a clear majority. It emphasized that the party or coalition with the most significant support in the legislative assembly should be invited to form the government.
6. Conflict Resolution Mechanisms:
• The commission recommended the establishment of mechanisms for the resolution of disputes between the Governor and the state government to ensure smooth governance.
7. Role in the Legislative Process:
• The commission suggested that the Governor should play a more active role in the legislative process, including addressing the state legislative assembly at the beginning of each session.
8. Public Statements:
• The commission recommended that Governors should refrain from making public statements or taking positions on political matters, as their role is largely ceremonial.

The Punchhi Commission, officially known as the "Commission on Centre-State Relations," was another commission established by the Government of India in 2007 to review and make recommendations on various aspects of center-state relations. This commission was named after its chairman, Justice M.M. Punchhi. The primary objective of the Punchhi Commission was to examine the existing and emerging issues in center-state relations and suggest ways to enhance cooperative federalism in India.

The Punchhi Commission also addressed the role and responsibilities of Governors in Indian states, just as the Sarkaria Commission did in 1983. Some of the key recommendations made by the Punchhi Commission regarding the role of Governors include:

1. Appointment of Governors:
• The commission recommended that Governors should be appointed after consulting the Chief Minister of the state. The objective was to ensure that the appointment is made with due consideration of the state's political and administrative context.
2. Fixed Terms for Governors:
• Like the Sarkaria Commission, the Punchhi Commission recommended that Governors should have a fixed term of five years to provide stability and reduce frequent changes.
3. Discretionary Powers:
• The commission emphasized that the Governor's discretionary powers should be exercised within the constitutional framework and limited to situations where there are no clear-cut constitutional or legal provisions.
4. Consultation with the Chief Minister:
• The commission recommended that the Governor should consult the Chief Minister on the appointment of key officials and also seek their advice on certain matters such as the summoning of the legislative assembly.
5. Role in Government Formation:
• The commission provided guidelines for the Governor's role in government formation when no party or coalition has a clear majority, emphasizing that the party or coalition with the most significant support should be given the opportunity to form the government.
6. Role in the Legislative Process:
• The commission suggested that Governors should play an active role in the legislative process, particularly in ensuring the passage of legislation and in addressing the state legislative assembly.
7. Resolution of Disputes:
• The commission recommended the establishment of mechanisms for the resolution of disputes between the Governor and the state government.
8. Role in Center-State Relations:
• The commission highlighted the Governor's role as a key link between the state and the central government, promoting cooperation and coordination.

The Punchhi Commission's recommendations, like those of the Sarkaria Commission, aimed to strengthen the principles of cooperative federalism and provide guidelines for the role of Governors in the Indian federal structure. The recommendations made by both commissions have played a significant role in shaping discussions on the functioning of Governors in Indian states. However, the implementation of these recommendations varies, and the actual practice of Governorship continues to depend on political and administrative contexts.

The office of the Governor in India has been a subject of debate and discussion, with various suggestions for reforms aimed at enhancing its effectiveness and aligning it with the principles of federalism and democratic governance. Here are some of the reforms that have been suggested for the Governor's office in India:

1. Appointment Process:
• Transparent and Consultative Process: The appointment of Governors should be made through a more transparent and consultative process, involving input from the state government and political parties. This can help depoliticize the appointment process.
2. Qualifications and Eligibility:
• Qualifications: There have been calls to define specific qualifications and eligibility criteria for the appointment of Governors, ensuring that they possess a background in law, public service, or other relevant fields.
3. Fixed Terms:
• Fixed Terms: Some suggest that Governors should have fixed terms, similar to the President of India. This can help in providing continuity and stability to the office and reduce the potential for abrupt changes based on political considerations.
4. Role and Discretion:
• Limit Discretion: There are suggestions to limit the discretionary powers of Governors, particularly in cases related to the formation of state governments and the withholding of assent to bills. Clarity on when discretionary powers can be exercised is important.
5. Consultation with the Chief Minister:
• Consultation with Chief Minister: Governors should have a requirement to consult with the Chief Minister on key issues, fostering a more cooperative relationship between the Governor and the elected state government.
6. Conflict Resolution Mechanisms:
• Dispute Resolution: Establish mechanisms for dispute resolution between the Governor and the state government to address conflicts that may arise in the functioning of the state's constitutional machinery.
7. Public Role:
• Reduced Public Role: Governors should refrain from making public statements or taking positions on political matters, as their role is largely ceremonial.
8. Role in Raj Bhavans:
• Optimizing Raj Bhavans: Governors' residences, or Raj Bhavans, are often seen as symbols of opulence. Suggestions have been made to optimize the use of these buildings for more productive purposes or to reduce their expenditure.
9. Feedback Mechanism:
• Feedback Mechanism: Establish mechanisms for the evaluation and feedback of Governors' performance, promoting accountability.
10. Training and Orientation:
• Orientation Programs: Governors should undergo training and orientation programs to familiarize themselves with the Constitution, their role, and the specific issues of the state they are appointed to.
11. Limit Political Appointments:
• Limiting Political Appointments: The appointment of career bureaucrats or individuals with a history of non-partisan service can be encouraged, reducing the perception of Governors as political appointees.
12. Constitutional Reforms:
• Constitutional Reforms: Some suggest that certain provisions in the Constitution regarding the Governor's office, especially with regard to discretionary powers, may need to be revisited and clarified.
13. Review by a Committee:
• Review by a Committee: The appointment and performance of Governors could be periodically reviewed by an independent committee or authority to ensure adherence to established norms and constitutional principles.

Reforming the Governor's office in India is a complex and politically sensitive issue, and any changes should be made with careful consideration of the principles of federalism, separation of powers, and democratic governance. Reforms should aim to strike a balance between the ceremonial role of the Governor and their responsibilities as the constitutional head of the state.