Overview
The Governor of a State is the constitutional head of the State executive, appointed by the President under Article 155 and holding office for five years during the pleasure of the President under Article 156. Every State has a Governor, and the executive power of the State is vested in that office by Article 154. The Governor of the State acts, in almost every matter, on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister, so the office is formal in most of its work and decisive in a few.
Office of Governor Under Articles 153 and 154
Constitutional Head of the State and Link With the Union
The office also links the State with the Union. Because the Union government in effect chooses and can remove the Governor, the post sits at the centre of Union-State relations, and most debates about it concern who is appointed, how long the Governor stays and on what grounds the Governor may be removed. This page covers the office itself, namely appointment, qualifications, oath, immunities, tenure, removal and the special responsibilities for particular States and tribal areas. What the Governor can do with the office, from assent to Bills to ordinances and discretion, is explained on the companion page on the powers of the Governor.
Article 153 provides that there shall be a Governor for each State, and Article 154 vests the executive power of the State in the Governor, to be exercised directly or through officers subordinate to the Governor. The State has no Vice-Governor. The executive consists of the Governor, the Chief Minister with the Council of Ministers, and the Advocate-General. Like the President at the Centre, the Governor is a nominal or constitutional head, while real executive power lies with Ministers responsible to the Legislative Assembly.
The office has a dual role. The Governor is the head of the State and also the channel through which the Union keeps in touch with the State's administration, for example through reports to the President. This second role is why the Sarkaria Commission opened its chapter on the Governor by calling the office "one of the key issues in Union-State relations". Even so, the Governor is not a servant of the Union. In Hargovind Pant v. Raghukul Tilak (1979), the Supreme Court held that appointment by the President is only a mode of appointment and does not make the Governor an employee of the Government of India; the office is an independent constitutional office.
One Governor for Two or More States and a Union Territory
The original Article 153 meant one Governor for each State. The Seventh Amendment of 1956 added a proviso so that the same person may be appointed Governor of two or more States, and Article 158(3A) then shares the Governor's emoluments and allowances among those States in the proportion the President fixes by order. The arrangement is common when a post falls vacant. In March 2026, for instance, the President appointed Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi as Governor of West Bengal and gave Kerala Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar additional charge of Tamil Nadu.
A Governor can also be placed in charge of a Union territory. Under Article 239(2), the President may appoint the Governor of a State as administrator of an adjoining Union territory, and in that role the Governor acts independently of the State Council of Ministers. The Governor of Punjab has been administrator of Chandigarh since 1984. Lakshadweep, by contrast, has its own Administrator appointed by the President under Article 239; the Governor of Kerala does not hold that charge.
- Two or more States: Allowed by the proviso to Article 153 since 1956; emoluments shared under Article 158(3A).
- Adjoining Union territory: Article 239(2); the Governor acts as administrator on his own, not on the advice of State Ministers.
- Contingencies: Article 160 lets the President provide for the discharge of the Governor’s functions in any situation the chapter does not cover, such as the death of a sitting Governor; the Chief Justice of the State High Court may then be asked to act temporarily.
Who Appoints the Governor of a State: Appointment Under Article 155
Appointment by the President on the Advice of the Union Government
The Governor of a State is appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal (Article 155). Because the President acts on the aid and advice of the Union Council of Ministers under Article 74, the choice is in practice the Union government's. The Governor is neither elected by the people nor chosen by an electoral college, unlike the President.
India followed the Canadian model here, where the governor of a province is appointed by the Centre, and set aside the American model, where the governor of a state is directly elected. Two conventions grew up around the appointment. One was that the Governor should be an outsider, not from the State concerned, so as to stand apart from local politics, and that the President should consult the State's Chief Minister before the appointment. Both conventions have been broken at times.
The appointment is flexible in practice. The President may transfer a Governor from one State to another for the rest of the term, and a Governor whose term has ended may be appointed again in the same State or another one. When a Governor resigns or a post falls vacant, the Governor of another State is often given additional charge until a full-time appointment is made.
Why the Governor Is Appointed and Not Elected
The Draft Constitution provided for a directly elected Governor, but the Constituent Assembly chose nomination by the President instead. Jawaharlal Nehru argued that an elected Governor "would to some extent encourage that separatist provincial tendency", and the Assembly accepted that an elected Governor beside a Chief Minister responsible to the legislature could lead to friction. The reasons usually given are:
- Parliamentary system: Direct election does not fit a State run by a Chief Minister responsible to the Assembly.
- Conflict: An elected Governor would be more likely to clash with the elected Chief Minister.
- Election cost: A nominal head does not need an expensive election.
- Neutrality: An elected Governor would belong to a party and could not be an impartial head.
- Unity: Election could encourage separatist tendencies, while nomination lets the Centre keep a link with every State.
| Feature | Governor of a State | President of India |
|---|---|---|
| How chosen | Appointed by the President (Art. 155) | Elected by an electoral college (Art. 54) |
| Minimum age | 35 years (Art. 157) | 35 years (Art. 58) |
| Oath administered by | Chief Justice of the State High Court (Art. 159) | Chief Justice of India (Art. 60) |
| Term | Five years, during the President's pleasure (Art. 156) | Five years (Art. 56) |
| Removal | Withdrawal of the President's pleasure, within B.P. Singhal (2010) | Impeachment by Parliament (Art. 61) |
| Discretion | Expressly contemplated by Article 163 | No such provision |
Qualifications of Governor, Conditions of Office and Oath
Qualifications of Governor Under Article 157
Article 157 lays down only two qualifications for the Governor of a State. The person must be a citizen of India and must have completed 35 years of age. The Constitution sets no test of suitability, so the commissions on Union-State relations have proposed one.
The Sarkaria Commission recommended that a person appointed Governor should satisfy four criteria:
- Eminence: He should be eminent in some walk of life.
- Outsider: He should be a person from outside the State.
- Detachment: He should be a detached figure, not too intimately connected with the local politics of the State.
- Distance from politics: He should not have taken too great a part in politics generally, and particularly in the recent past.
It added that persons from minority groups should continue to be given a chance, that a politician from the ruling party at the Union should not be appointed Governor of a State run by another party, and that consultation with the Chief Minister should be written into Article 155. It also suggested that the Prime Minister consult the Vice-President and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, informally and confidentially.
The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC), in its consultation paper of 2001, went further and proposed that a committee of the Prime Minister, the Union Home Minister, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the State's Chief Minister should select the Governor. The Punchhi Commission of 2010 found that parties in power at the Centre had given the Sarkaria criteria "scant attention", producing a politicised governorship, and proposed amending Article 157 itself, so that the Governor would be an eminent person, from outside the State, and should not have taken part in active politics for at least a couple of years before appointment.
Conditions of Office, Emoluments and Official Residence
Article 158 sets the conditions under which a Governor holds office. They keep the Governor apart from the legislature and from other paid posts:
- No seat in a legislature: The Governor may not be a member of either House of Parliament or of a State legislature; a member who is appointed Governor is deemed to vacate the seat on the date of entering office.
- No other office of profit: The Governor may not hold any other office of profit.
- Official residence: The Governor is entitled to use the official residences without paying rent.
- Emoluments fixed by Parliament: Emoluments, allowances and privileges are determined by Parliament by law, now the Governors (Emoluments, Allowances and Privileges) Act, 1982. The Second Schedule originally provided 5,500 rupees a month; the figure was raised to ₹3,50,000 a month in 2018.
- No reduction during the term: The Governor’s emoluments and allowances cannot be diminished during the term of office (Article 158(4)).
Because these conditions sit in Chapter II of Part VI, they can be amended by Parliament alone, by a special majority, without ratification by the States. Ratification by half the State legislatures is needed only for the provisions listed in the proviso to Article 368(2), which include Article 162 on the extent of the State's executive power and the Lists of the Seventh Schedule.
Oath of the Governor Under Article 159
Before entering office, every Governor, and every person discharging the Governor's functions, makes an oath or affirmation in the presence of the Chief Justice of the High Court exercising jurisdiction in the State or, in that Chief Justice's absence, the senior-most judge of that court available. The Governor swears or affirms to faithfully execute the office, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law to the best of his ability, and to devote himself to the service and well-being of the people of the State.
The ceremony follows this text. When R.N. Ravi moved from Tamil Nadu to West Bengal in March 2026, his swearing-in as Governor was arranged before the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court. The oath also shapes how the office is judged. In the Tamil Nadu case of 2025, the Supreme Court said a Governor must be guided not by political expediency but by the sanctity of the constitutional oath he undertakes.
Immunities of the Governor Under Article 361
Personal Immunity and Its Limits
Article 361 protects the Governor, like the President, from court proceedings while in office. The protection is personal and has four parts:
- Official acts: The Governor is not answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of the office (Article 361(1)).
- Criminal proceedings: No criminal proceedings whatsoever may be instituted or continued against the Governor in any court during the term, even for personal acts (Article 361(2)).
- Arrest: No process for the arrest or imprisonment of the Governor may issue from any court during the term (Article 361(3)).
- Civil suits for personal acts: These may be filed during the term only after two months’ notice in writing to the Governor (Article 361(4)).
The immunity protects the person, not the government. A proviso to Article 361(1) keeps open the right to bring proceedings against the Government of the State. The Supreme Court made the same distinction in its advisory opinion of 20 November 2025: Article 361 is an absolute bar on subjecting the Governor personally to judicial proceedings, but the constitutional office of the Governor remains subject to the court's jurisdiction, so a court may direct a Governor to decide on a Bill after prolonged and unexplained delay.
Tenure of Governor Under Article 156
Term of Office: Five Years During the Pleasure of the President
The tenure of a Governor is five years, but it is subject to the pleasure of the President. Article 156 says three things in order. The Governor holds office during the pleasure of the President; the Governor may resign by writing to the President; and, subject to these, the Governor holds office for a term of five years from the date of entering office. A proviso adds that the Governor continues in office after the term ends until a successor enters upon office, so a State is never left without a Governor.
Two results follow, and both are tested often. A Governor can be removed before five years, because the five-year term is subject to the President's pleasure. A Governor can also serve beyond five years while waiting for a successor. The five years are therefore neither a guaranteed minimum nor a strict maximum.
Removal of Governor and the Doctrine of Pleasure
The doctrine of pleasure is the rule, inherited from English law, that certain office-holders serve only as long as the appointing authority wishes. For the Governor it is written into Article 156(1), and the Constitution lays down no grounds and no procedure for removal. There is no impeachment of a Governor, unlike the President under Article 61.
Governments have used this freely. In 1989 the National Front government headed by V.P. Singh asked all Governors to resign, and some were replaced. In 1991 the Congress government headed by P.V. Narasimha Rao changed fourteen Governors. On 2 July 2004 the Governors of Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana and Goa were removed together on the advice of the new Union Council of Ministers. The Sarkaria Commission had already recorded that frequent removals and transfers before the end of the term had lowered the prestige of the office.
B.P. Singhal v. Union of India (2010): Limits on Removal
The removals of 2004 led to B.P. Singhal v. Union of India, decided by a Constitution Bench on 7 May 2010. The Court accepted that under Article 156(1) the President can remove a Governor at any time, without giving reasons and without a chance to show cause. But it held that the power is not unlimited, and set out four rules:
- Not arbitrary: The power cannot be used in an arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner; it is to be used in rare and exceptional circumstances for valid and compelling reasons.
- Not for disagreement: A Governor cannot be removed for being out of sync with the policies and ideologies of the Union government or the party in power at the Centre, or because the Union has lost confidence in the Governor.
- Not for a change of government: A new government at the Centre is not a ground for removing Governors to make way for its own choices.
- Limited review: If a removed Governor shows prima facie that the removal was arbitrary, mala fide, capricious or whimsical, the court will ask the Union to disclose its material, and will interfere if the reasons are irrelevant, arbitrary, whimsical or mala fide, but not merely because another view is possible.
The judgment gave the Governor a measure of protection without creating security of tenure. Removal still needs no stated reason, and only a Governor who can show bad faith or arbitrariness gets the court to look at the Union's reasons.
Commission Proposals on Security of Tenure
The commissions agreed that the Governor needs more security than Article 156 gives, but differed on how. The Sarkaria Commission recommended that the five-year tenure should not be disturbed except very rarely and for some extremely compelling reason. A Governor facing early removal should be told the grounds informally and allowed to reply, the reply should be examined by an advisory group of the Vice-President and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or a retired Chief Justice of India, and a statement explaining the early end of a tenure may be laid before Parliament.
The Sarkaria Commission declined to propose impeachment, because a Governor's role has heavy political content and the grounds for removal "may not, therefore, be susceptible of investigation and proof by judicial standards".
The Punchhi Commission, reporting in March 2010, went further:
- Fixed tenure: Governors should get a fixed tenure of five years, and the words “during the pleasure of the President” in Article 156 should be replaced by a fair procedure.
- Impeachment: The Governor should be removable by impeachment by the State Legislature on the lines of Article 61, in relation to the discharge of the office’s functions.
The Sarkaria Commission also proposed a convention that a Governor, on leaving office, should take no other office under the Union or a State except a second term as Governor or election as Vice-President or President, and should not return to active party politics. None of these proposals has been written into the Constitution; B.P. Singhal remains the binding law on removal.
Constitutional Position of the Governor and the Council of Ministers
Nominal Head Acting on Aid and Advice
The Constitution sets up parliamentary government in the States as at the Centre. Article 163(1) provides a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at its head to aid and advise the Governor, except where the Constitution requires the Governor to act in discretion. The Chief Minister is appointed by the Governor under Article 164, the other Ministers on the Chief Minister's advice, and all executive action is expressed to be taken in the Governor's name under Article 166. Article 167 obliges the Chief Minister to keep the Governor informed of Cabinet decisions and proposals for legislation.
In Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974), a seven-judge bench held that the Governor is the constitutional or formal head of the State and exercises powers on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, save where the Constitution requires discretion. The Governor's position still differs from the President's in two ways:
- Written discretion: Article 163 expressly contemplates functions exercised in the Governor’s discretion, and Article 163(2) makes the Governor’s decision on whether a matter falls within that discretion final. The Constitution has no such provision for the President.
- Binding advice: The 42nd Amendment of 1976 made ministerial advice binding on the President under Article 74; no matching change was made for the Governor.
The powers themselves, the narrow reading of discretion in Nabam Rebia (2016) and the Supreme Court's rulings on Bills from 2023 to 2025 are explained in full on the companion page on the powers of the Governor.
Special Responsibilities of the Governor
Article 371 Series: Special Responsibilities for Particular States
Part XXI of the Constitution gives the Governors of some States special responsibilities that a Governor elsewhere does not have. In these matters the Governor either acts in his individual judgement after consulting the Ministers or in his discretion, and the Sarkaria Commission noted that in discharging them the Governor is not bound to accept ministerial advice, though it is wise to consult.
| State | Article | Special responsibility of the Governor |
|---|---|---|
| Maharashtra and Gujarat | 371(2) | Separate development boards for Vidarbha, Marathwada and the rest of Maharashtra, or Saurashtra, Kutch and the rest of Gujarat; equitable allocation of development funds; technical education and jobs for these areas, if the President so orders |
| Nagaland | 371A(1)(b) | Law and order, in his individual judgement after consulting the Council of Ministers, while internal disturbances continue |
| Manipur | 371C(1) and (2) | Proper functioning of the Hill Areas committee of the Assembly; annual report to the President on the Hill Areas |
| Sikkim | 371F(g) | Peace and an equitable arrangement for the social and economic advancement of different sections of the population, acting in his discretion |
| Arunachal Pradesh | 371H(a) | Law and order, in his individual judgement after consulting the Council of Ministers |
| Karnataka | 371J(1) | A separate development board for the Hyderabad-Karnataka region, equitable allocation of funds and opportunities, if the President so orders |
In each case where individual judgement is required, the Governor's decision on whether a matter falls within it is final. For Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh, the President may end the special responsibility for law and order by order once it is no longer needed.
Fifth Schedule: Scheduled Areas and the Governor
Article 244(1) and the Fifth Schedule govern the Scheduled Areas, which are areas declared by the President by order after consultation with the Governor of the State (paragraph 6). The Ministry of Tribal Affairs gives four criteria for declaring an area, namely preponderance of tribal population, compactness and reasonable size, a viable administrative entity such as a district, block or taluk, and economic backwardness compared with neighbouring areas. Orders under the Fifth Schedule apply today in ten States: Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha and Rajasthan.
Declaring an area does not take it out of the State's hands. Under paragraph 2, the executive power of the State extends to the Scheduled Areas. The Governor carries the special duties:
- Annual report: The Governor reports to the President on the administration of the Scheduled Areas every year or whenever required, and the executive power of the Union extends to giving the State directions about them (paragraph 3).
- Tribes Advisory Council: Each State with Scheduled Areas has a council of not more than twenty members, about three-fourths of them Scheduled Tribe members of the Legislative Assembly, which advises on matters the Governor refers to it (paragraph 4).
- Applying laws: The Governor may direct by public notification that an Act of Parliament or of the State shall not apply to a Scheduled Area, or shall apply with exceptions and modifications (paragraph 5(1)).
- Regulations: The Governor may make regulations for peace and good government, in particular to prohibit or restrict the transfer of land by or among Scheduled Tribe members, to regulate the allotment of land and to regulate money-lending (paragraph 5(2)), after consulting the Tribes Advisory Council and with the President’s assent.
Scheduled Tribes are specified by the President, not the Governor. Under Article 342(1), the President, after consulting the Governor, specifies by public notification the tribes that are Scheduled Tribes in relation to each State, so a community listed in one State need not be listed in another.
Sixth Schedule: Tribal Areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram
Article 244(2) and the Sixth Schedule cover the tribal areas of four north-eastern States, which are administered as autonomous districts with District Councils and Regional Councils holding legislative, judicial and executive powers. Paragraph 20 lists the tribal areas.
| State | Tribal areas listed in paragraph 20 of the Sixth Schedule |
|---|---|
| Assam | North Cachar Hills District; Karbi Anglong District; Bodoland Territorial Areas District |
| Meghalaya | Khasi Hills District; Jaintia Hills District; Garo Hills District |
| Tripura | Tripura Tribal Areas District |
| Mizoram | Chakma District; Mara District; Lai District |
The Governor's role here is larger than in the Fifth Schedule. By public notification the Governor may divide an autonomous district into autonomous regions where different Scheduled Tribes live, include or exclude areas, create a new autonomous district, increase or diminish its area, unite districts and alter a district's name (paragraph 1). Orders creating, enlarging, diminishing or uniting districts need the report of a commission appointed under paragraph 14.
Reforming the Governor's Office: Commissions and Current Debate
Sarkaria, NCRWC and Punchhi on Appointment and Removal
Three national reviews have shaped the debate over the Governor's office. Each accepted a nominated Governor and tried to make the choice cleaner and the tenure safer.
- Sarkaria Commission (set up 1983, report 1988): Laid down the four selection criteria, asked for consultation with the Chief Minister through an amended Article 155, advised against appointing a ruling-party politician to a State run by another party, and wanted the five-year tenure left undisturbed except for extremely compelling reasons.
- NCRWC (consultation paper of 11 May 2001): Proposed that a committee of the Prime Minister, the Union Home Minister, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chief Minister select the Governor, and agreed that tenure should not be disturbed without a chance to show cause.
- Punchhi Commission (constituted 2007, report March 2010): Proposed writing the qualifications into Article 157, a fixed five-year tenure, and impeachment by the State Legislature on the lines of Article 61.
In Rameshwar Prasad (2006), the Supreme Court said that the mala fide allegations surrounding Governors' appointments could be avoided if the Sarkaria and NCRWC recommendations were implemented, and called for a national policy with common minimum parameters for appointment.
Kurian Joseph Committee, Address Disputes and Additional Charges
The questions the commissions raised are still argued over. In February 2026, the High-Level Committee on Union-State Relations set up by the Tamil Nadu government in April 2025 under Justice Kurian Joseph, a retired Supreme Court judge, submitted Part I of its report, and the committee is reported to have recommended a new schedule in the Constitution to codify the rules for the Governor's discretion. Reports in 2026 also recorded disputes in several States over the Governor's address to the legislature and over delay in assenting to Bills, and the frequent use of additional charge, as in Tamil Nadu from March 2026, kept the question of full-time Governors alive.
The common thread is the one the Constituent Assembly first faced, a Governor chosen by the Union but expected to act as an impartial head of the State. The commissions answer it with clear selection criteria, security of tenure and a narrow, defined discretion; the courts answer it through B.P. Singhal on removal and the judgments on the powers of the Governor.
Previous Year UPSC-CSE Questions
Previous Year UPSC-CSE Questions By the end you will be able to draft model answers for the following UPSC questions. Each question carries a collapsible framework showing how to approach it in the exam.
- UPSC Prelims 1995 Prelims-GSArticle 156 of the Constitution of India provides that a Governor shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office. Which of the following can be deduced from this?
- I. No Governor can be removed from office till completion of his term.
- II. No Governor can continue in office beyond a period of five years. Select the correct answer from the codes given below:
How to approach this Prelims question
Approach: Read Article 156 as a whole, not only clause (3). Clause (1) makes the Governor hold office during the pleasure of the President, so the President can remove a Governor before five years, so statement I does not follow. The proviso to clause (3) says the Governor continues to hold office until a successor enters upon office, so a Governor can serve beyond five years, and statement II does not follow. Neither statement can be deduced.
Trap to watch: The words 'five years' tempt a fixed term; the pleasure clause and the proviso undo it.
Key facts to recall:
- (a) I only: Wrong. Removal at the pleasure of the President is possible at any time under Article 156(1).
- (b) II only: Wrong. The proviso lets a Governor continue until a successor takes charge.
- (c) Both I and II: Wrong. Neither statement follows.
- (d) Neither I nor II: Correct. Article 156(1) rules out statement I and the proviso rules out statement II.
Answer signal: Option (d). The five-year term is subject to the President's pleasure and to continuance until a successor takes over.
- UPSC Prelims 2001 Prelims-GSMatch List I with List II and select the correct answer using the codes given below the Lists: List I (Article of the Constitution)
- I. Article 54
- II. Article 75
- III. Article 155
- IV. Article 164 List II (Content) A) Election of the President of India B) Appointment of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers C) Appointment of the Governor of a State D) Appointment of the Chief Minister and Council of Ministers of a State E) Composition of Legislative Assemblies
How to approach this Prelims question
Approach: Fix each Article in turn. Article 54 deals with the election of the President (A). Article 75 deals with the appointment of the Prime Minister and other Ministers (B). Article 155 deals with the appointment of the Governor (C). Article 164 deals with the appointment of the Chief Minister and other Ministers of a State (D). Composition of Legislative Assemblies (E) is Article 170 and is a distractor. The only code with I-A, II-B, III-C, IV-D is (a).
Trap to watch: Article 164 sounds like an Assembly provision; it is the Chief Minister's appointment.
Key facts to recall:
- (a) I-A, II-B, III-C, IV-D: Correct. Each Article matches its content.
- (b) I-A, II-B, III-D, IV-E: Wrong. Article 155 is the Governor, not the Chief Minister, and Article 164 is not about the composition of Assemblies.
- (c) I-B, II-A, III-C, IV-E: Wrong. Article 54 is the President's election and Article 75 the Prime Minister's appointment.
- (d) I-B, II-A, III-D, IV-C: Wrong. It reverses every pair.
Answer signal: Option (a). Article 155 is the Governor's appointment and Article 164 the Chief Minister's.
- UPSC Prelims 2009 Prelims-GSConsider the following statements :
- The Governor of Punjab is concurrently the Administrator of Chandigarh.
- The Governor of Kerala is concurrently the Administrator of Lakshadweep.
Which of the above statements is/are correct ?
How to approach this Prelims question
Approach: Article 239(2) allows the President to appoint the Governor of a State as administrator of an adjoining Union territory. The Governor of Punjab has acted as administrator of Chandigarh since 1984, so statement 1 is correct. Lakshadweep is administered by its own Administrator appointed by the President under Article 239(1), not by the Governor of Kerala, so statement 2 is wrong.
Trap to watch: Kerala is next to Lakshadweep, but Lakshadweep has its own Administrator.
Key facts to recall:
- (a) 1 only: Correct. The Governor of Punjab administers Chandigarh; Lakshadweep has a separate Administrator.
- (b) 2 only: Wrong. The Governor of Kerala is not the Administrator of Lakshadweep.
- (c) Both 1 and 2: Wrong. Statement 2 is wrong.
- (d) Neither 1 nor 2: Wrong. Statement 1 is correct.
Answer signal: Option (a). Punjab's Governor holds Chandigarh under Article 239(2); Lakshadweep has its own Administrator.
- UPSC Prelims 2013 Prelims-GSWhich one of the following statements is correct?
How to approach this Prelims question
Approach: Test each option against its Article. The proviso to Article 153 allows one person to be Governor of two or more States, so (a) is wrong. High Court judges are appointed by the President under Article 217, the Governor being consulted, so (b) is wrong. Article 156(1) makes the Governor hold office during the President's pleasure and the Constitution lays down no removal procedure, so (c) is correct. In Delhi, the Chief Minister is appointed by the President under Article 239AA(5), not by the Lieutenant Governor, so (d) is wrong.
Trap to watch: Option (b) mirrors the Supreme Court, but High Court judges are appointed by the President.
Key facts to recall:
- (a) Same person cannot be Governor of two States: Wrong. The Seventh Amendment of 1956 added the proviso to Article 153 that allows it.
- (b) Governor appoints High Court judges: Wrong. The President appoints them under Article 217 after consulting the Governor among others.
- (c) No removal procedure for a Governor: Correct. The Governor holds office during the President's pleasure, with no grounds or procedure laid down.
- (d) Lt. Governor appoints the Chief Minister of a Union territory with a legislature: Wrong. For Delhi, Article 239AA(5) gives that power to the President.
Answer signal: Option (c). Article 156(1) sets no grounds or procedure for removal.
- UPSC Prelims 2018 Prelims-GSConsider the following statements:
- No criminal proceedings shall be instituted against the Governor of a State in any court during his term of office.
- The emoluments and allowances of the Governor of a State shall not be diminished during his term of office.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
How to approach this Prelims question
Approach: Statement 1 restates Article 361(2), which bars criminal proceedings against the Governor in any court during the term, so it is correct. Statement 2 restates Article 158(4), which says the Governor's emoluments and allowances shall not be diminished during the term, so it is correct. Both are correct.
Trap to watch: Statement 1 covers personal acts too, which makes it look too wide; it is the text of Article 361(2).
Key facts to recall:
- (a) 1 only: Wrong. Statement 2 is also correct under Article 158(4).
- (b) 2 only: Wrong. Statement 1 is also correct under Article 361(2).
- (c) Both 1 and 2: Correct. Articles 361(2) and 158(4).
- (d) Neither 1 nor 2: Wrong. Both statements are correct.
Answer signal: Option (c). Article 361(2) bars criminal proceedings and Article 158(4) protects emoluments during the term.
- UPSC Prelims 2019 Prelims-GSWhich one of the following suggested that the Governor should be an eminent person from outside the State and should be a detached figure without intense political links or should not have taken part in politics in the recent past?
How to approach this Prelims question
Approach: The wording in the stem is the Sarkaria Commission's recommendation 4.16.01, namely eminent in some walk of life, from outside the State, a detached figure not too intimately connected with local politics, and not having taken too great a part in politics in the recent past. The NCRWC and the later Punchhi Commission endorsed these criteria, which can make option (d) tempting, but the criteria were laid down by Sarkaria.
Trap to watch: The NCRWC endorsed these criteria later, but it did not frame them.
Key facts to recall:
- (a) First Administrative Reforms Commission (1966): Wrong. The four selection criteria come from the Sarkaria Commission.
- (b) Rajamannar Committee (1969): Wrong. The criteria quoted are the Sarkaria Commission's.
- (c) Sarkaria Commission (1983): Correct. Its recommendation 4.16.01 sets out exactly these criteria.
- (d) NCRWC (2000): Wrong. Its 2001 consultation paper built on Sarkaria and proposed a selection committee, rather than framing these criteria.
Answer signal: Option (c). The four criteria are recommendation 4.16.01 of the Sarkaria Commission.
- UPSC Prelims 2022 Prelims-GSIf a particular area is brought under the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India, which one of the following statements best reflects the consequence of it?
How to approach this Prelims question
Approach: Paragraph 5(2) of the Fifth Schedule lets the Governor make regulations for a Scheduled Area that prohibit or restrict the transfer of land by or among members of the Scheduled Tribes. That is the consequence the Schedule is designed for. Autonomous councils belong to the Sixth Schedule, the area stays part of the State, and Special Category status has nothing to do with the Schedule.
Trap to watch: Self-governing councils belong to the Sixth Schedule, not the Fifth.
Key facts to recall:
- (a) Prevent transfer of tribal land: Correct. Paragraph 5(2)(a) allows the Governor's regulations to prohibit or restrict such transfers.
- (b) Create a local self-governing body: Wrong. Autonomous District Councils are a Sixth Schedule feature.
- (c) Convert the area into a Union territory: Wrong. The executive power of the State extends to Scheduled Areas (paragraph 2).
- (d) Special Category State: Wrong. The Fifth Schedule confers no such status.
Answer signal: Option (a). The Governor's land-transfer regulations under paragraph 5(2).
- UPSC Prelims 2024 Prelims-GSConsider the following statements:
- It is the Governor of the State who recognizes and declares any community of that State as a Scheduled Tribe.
- A community declared as a Scheduled Tribe in a State need not be so in another State.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
How to approach this Prelims question
Approach: Under Article 342(1), the President, after consultation with the Governor, specifies the Scheduled Tribes by public notification, so the Governor does not declare them, and statement 1 is wrong. The notification is made in relation to each State, so a community can be a Scheduled Tribe in one State and not in another, so statement 2 is correct.
Trap to watch: The Governor is consulted, which makes it look as if the Governor declares the tribes.
Key facts to recall:
- (a) 1 only: Wrong. The President, not the Governor, specifies Scheduled Tribes.
- (b) 2 only: Correct. Lists are made State by State under Article 342(1).
- (c) Both 1 and 2: Wrong. Statement 1 is wrong.
- (d) Neither 1 nor 2: Wrong. Statement 2 is correct.
Answer signal: Option (b). Under Article 342(1) the President specifies, after consulting the Governor, in relation to each State.
- UPSC Prelims 2025 Prelims-GSConsider the following subjects under the Constitution of India:
- List I-Union List, in the Seventh Schedule
- Extent of the executive power of a State
- Conditions of the Governor's office For a constitutional amendment with respect to
which of the above, ratification by the Legislatures of not less than one-half of the States is required before presenting the bill to the President of India for assent?
How to approach this Prelims question
Approach: The proviso to Article 368(2) lists what needs ratification by half the States: Articles 54, 55, 73, 162, 241 and 279A; Chapter IV of Part V, Chapter V of Part VI and Chapter I of Part XI; any of the Lists in the Seventh Schedule; the representation of States in Parliament; and Article 368 itself. List I is covered by "any of the Lists" (I). The extent of the State's executive power is Article 162 (II). The conditions of the Governor's office are Article 158, in Chapter II of Part VI, which the proviso does not name (III). So I and II only.
Trap to watch: The Governor sounds federal, but Article 158 is outside the ratification proviso.
Key facts to recall:
- (a) I and II only: Correct. The Lists and Article 162 are named in the proviso to Article 368(2).
- (b) II and III only: Wrong. Article 158 is not named, and List I is.
- (c) I and III only: Wrong. Article 162 is named; Article 158 is not.
- (d) I, II and III: Wrong. Article 158 does not need ratification.
Answer signal: Option (a). Article 158 lies outside the ratification proviso; Article 162 and the Lists lie inside it.
- UPSC Prelims 2025 Prelims-GSWith reference to the Indian polity, consider the following statements:
- I. The Governor of a State is not answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his/her office.
- II. No criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against the Governor during his/her term of office.
- III. Members of a State Legislature are not liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said within the House.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
How to approach this Prelims question
Approach: Statement I is Article 361(1), so it is correct. Statement II is Article 361(2), which bars criminal proceedings being instituted or continued during the term, so it is correct. Statement III is the privilege of State legislators under Article 194(2), for anything said or any vote given in the legislature, so it is correct. All three are correct.
Trap to watch: Statement III is about legislators, not the Governor, yet it is also correct.
Key facts to recall:
- (a) I and II only: Wrong. Statement III is also correct under Article 194(2).
- (b) II and III only: Wrong. Statement I is also correct under Article 361(1).
- (c) I and III only: Wrong. Statement II is also correct under Article 361(2).
- (d) I, II and III: Correct. Articles 361(1), 361(2) and 194(2).
Answer signal: Option (d). Two Governor immunities under Article 361 and the legislators' privilege under Article 194(2).
- UPSC Prelims 2025 Prelims-GSWith reference to the Constitution of India, if an area in a State is declared as Scheduled Area under the Fifth Schedule
- I. the State Government loses its executive power in such areas and a local body assumes total administration
- II. the Union Government can take over the total administration of such areas under certain circumstances on the recommendations of the Governor
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
How to approach this Prelims question
Approach: Paragraph 2 of the Fifth Schedule says the executive power of a State extends to the Scheduled Areas, so the State does not lose it, and statement I is wrong. Paragraph 3 lets the Union give directions to the State about their administration after the Governor's report, which is not a takeover of total administration, so statement II is wrong.
Trap to watch: Paragraph 3 lets the Union direct, which can be mistaken for a takeover.
Key facts to recall:
- (a) I only: Wrong. The State keeps its executive power in Scheduled Areas.
- (b) II only: Wrong. The Union may give directions, not take over the administration.
- (c) Both I and II: Wrong. Both statements are wrong.
- (d) Neither I nor II: Correct. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Fifth Schedule rule out both.
Answer signal: Option (d). The State's executive power continues (paragraph 2); the Union only directs (paragraph 3).
Sources and Further Reading
- Legislative Department: The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024)
- Supreme Court of India: B.P. Singhal v. Union of India (2010)
- Supreme Court of India: Special Reference No. 1 of 2025 (20 November 2025)
- Inter-State Council Secretariat: Sarkaria Commission Report, Role of the Governor
- Inter-State Council Secretariat: Punchhi Commission Report, Volume II
- Department of Legal Affairs: NCRWC, The Institution of Governor under the Constitution (2001)
- Ministry of Tribal Affairs: Scheduled Areas
- NCERT: Indian Constitution at Work (Class XI), Federalism
- Akashvani: Telangana Governor's residence renamed Lok Bhavan
- The Hindu: Governor's role in government formation, explained (10 May 2026)
- The Hindu, Delhi edition: 21, 23, 24 and 26 January, 17 February, 6 and 12 March 2026
- Wikipedia: Governor (India)
- Wikipedia: Administrator of Chandigarh
- Wikipedia: Administrator of Lakshadweep
- UPSC: Civil Services Examination question papers
Editorial Disclaimer
This article draws on the Constitution of India, Supreme Court judgments, the reports of the Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions and the NCRWC, and the other sources listed on this page. Later changes to the law and the office are not reflected until the page is next revised.
