What are the constitutional implications of the Governor not representing the Union of India?

The Governor is a key constitutional authority in the states of India, appointed by the President and expected to act as a bridge between the Centre and the State. The recent assertion that the Governor does not represent the Union of India has important constitutional implications, especially for the federal structure and Centre-State relations.

• Autonomy of the State: If the Governor is not seen as a representative of the Union, it reinforces the idea that the Governor is primarily a constitutional head of the state, acting on the advice of the state’s Council of Ministers except in certain discretionary situations.
• Federal Structure: The Indian Constitution establishes a quasi-federal system. The Governor’s role as an agent of the Centre has often been criticized for undermining state autonomy. Distancing the Governor from the Union may strengthen cooperative federalism and reduce perceptions of central interference.
• Article 153-162: These articles define the Governor's powers and functions. If the Governor is not a Union representative, their intervention in state affairs (such as recommending President’s Rule under Article 356) must be based strictly on constitutional grounds, not on the Centre’s political interests.
• Appointment and Removal: The Governor is still appointed and removed by the President (the Union), which creates ambiguity. The claim may lead to demands for more transparent and consultative processes involving states in the appointment.
• Discretionary Powers: The scope of the Governor’s discretionary powers (like reserving bills for the President) may be re-examined to ensure they are used in the spirit of constitutional propriety, not as a tool of the Centre.
• Centre-State Relations: This position could reduce political tensions between state governments and Governors, as states may feel less threatened by the Governor’s actions, perceiving them as less influenced by the Centre.