Senior Congress Leader Sounds Alarm on Governor Overreach
In a powerful critique of India's current political landscape, senior Congress leader and former Union Minister P Chidambaram has raised serious concerns about the functioning of governors in opposition-ruled states. Writing on November 30, 2025, the veteran politician expressed dismay at what he termed as the "unreasonable age" where constitutional positions are being misused to thwart democratic processes.
The Constitutional Crisis of Governor's Role
Chidambaram began his analysis by questioning the very presence of governors in state legislatures. Article 168 of the Indian Constitution establishes that every state shall have a legislature consisting of the governor and one or two houses. However, the senior leader argued that having an unelected official as part of a legislature composed of elected representatives is fundamentally redundant.
He suggested that ceremonial duties such as addressing the house could be performed without making the governor a formal member of the legislature, similar to how the King of England functions in the British parliamentary system. The former finance minister emphasized that the governor's crucial role in the legislative process lies in granting assent to bills, which completes the transformation of a bill into an act.
The Menace of Pocket Veto
The heart of Chidambaram's concern revolves around what he describes as the "invention" of the pocket veto by governors. Article 200 of the Constitution clearly states that when a bill is presented to the governor, they must either grant assent, withhold assent, or reserve the bill for the president's consideration. The proviso allows returning the bill to the legislature for reconsideration with recommendations.
However, as Chidambaram pointed out, governors in opposition-ruled states have created a fourth option: simply doing nothing. This pocket veto, where governors neither approve nor reject bills nor send them to the president, represents what the parliamentarian called "unalloyed malice" that thwarts the will of the people expressed through their elected representatives.
The Supreme Court has addressed this issue through both a two-judge bench and a five-judge bench, with both panels outlawing the pocket veto practice. While they agreed on eliminating this unconstitutional practice, they differed significantly on the crucial matter of imposing time limits for governors to act on bills.
Judicial Interpretation and Democratic Reality
Chidambaram highlighted the critical difference between the two Supreme Court benches regarding time constraints. The two-judge bench had stipulated strict time limits for governors to make decisions on bills, while the five-judge bench overruled this approach, emphasizing the need for "elasticity for constitutional authorities to perform their functions."
The Congress leader expressed disappointment with this outcome, noting that the larger bench based its opinion on theoretical constitutional principles rather than the practical reality demonstrated by numerous examples from states including Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal.
Chidambaram invoked Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's warning that even the best constitution can turn bad if implemented by the wrong people. He somberly noted that some of the current holders of gubernatorial positions certainly don't qualify as the "good lot" that Ambedkar hoped would work the constitution.
The former minister argued that law must respond to reality, citing how the Supreme Court interpreted Article 217 to secure judicial independence when it felt threatened. He maintained that Article 200 presents an even graver problem since a legislature's ability to pass laws constitutes the very essence of democracy and the rule of law.
Chidambaram concluded that when laws are unreasonably and deliberately obstructed, an appeal to reason alone becomes futile. The systematic stalling of bills passed by duly elected legislatures for months or even years doesn't just hinder the working of the constitution—it actively wrecks it, ultimately defeating the will of the Indian people.
