Detailed Concept Breakdown
7 concepts, approximately 14 minutes to master.
1. Constitutional Position of the Governor (basic)
To understand the Governor, we must first look at the blueprint of our democracy. The Constitution of India establishes a parliamentary system at the state level, mirroring the structure at the Centre. Just as the President is the nominal head of the Union, the Governor serves as the nominal or titular executive head of the State (Laxmikanth, Governor, p.313). While the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers wield real power, all executive actions of the state government are formally taken in the Governor's name.
Articles 153 to 167 in Part VI of the Constitution outline the State Executive. Originally, the Constitution envisioned one Governor per state. However, the 7th Amendment Act of 1956 introduced a practical flexibility: the same person can now be appointed as Governor for two or more states (D. D. Basu, The State Executive, p.269). This office is unique because the Governor acts as a vital bridge—functioning both as the constitutional head of the state and as a representative of the Union government.
A critical aspect of the Governor’s position involves Article 213, which grants them the power to promulgate ordinances when the state legislature is not in session. While this power is meant for urgent situations, it is not absolute. In the landmark case of D. C. Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar (1987), the Supreme Court delivered a stern warning against the misuse of this power. The Court ruled that the mechanical re-promulgation of ordinances—essentially bypassing the legislature for years—is a "fraud on the Constitution" (D. D. Basu, The Union Executive, p.238). This judgment reinforced that the Governor's legislative power is exceptional and must never subvert the democratic role of the elected legislature.
Key Takeaway The Governor is the nominal executive head of a state who must exercise legislative powers, like issuing ordinances, as a supplement to—not a substitute for—the state legislature.
Sources:
Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Governor, p.313; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), The State Executive, p.269; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), The Union Executive, p.238
2. Ordinance-making Power: Article 213 (basic)
In our journey through the Governor's powers,
Article 213 stands out as perhaps the most significant
legislative power. It empowers the Governor to promulgate
Ordinances when the State Legislature is not in session. Think of an Ordinance as a 'temporary law' born out of necessity. As noted in
M. Laxmikanth, Governor, p.316, this is one of the four broad pillars of gubernatorial authority. The core philosophy here is to ensure that the administration does not come to a standstill if an urgent situation arises while the assembly is in recess.
However, this power is not a substitute for the legislature. An Ordinance has the same
force and effect as an Act of the State Legislature, but it comes with a strict 'expiry date.' Once the Legislature reassembles, the Ordinance must be laid before it. It naturally expires
six weeks from the date of reassembly, unless the House passes a resolution disapproving it earlier. If the House approves it, it becomes a full-fledged Act. The maximum life of an Ordinance can thus be
six months and six weeks (six months being the maximum gap between two sessions of the Legislature).
While the Governor is a part of the State Legislature under
Article 164 (or more broadly, the framework described in
D. D. Basu, The State Executive, p.272), this law-making power is meant for emergent situations only. A critical check on this power was established in the landmark
D.C. Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar (1987) case. The Supreme Court ruled that 're-promulgating' ordinances repeatedly without placing them before the legislature is a
'fraud on the Constitution.' It clarified that the executive cannot use Article 213 to bypass the democratic law-making process indefinitely.
| Condition | Details |
|---|
| Timing | Only when either House (in bicameral) or the Assembly (in unicameral) is not in session. |
| Circumstances | The Governor must be satisfied that immediate action is required. |
| Presidential Consent | Required in specific cases (e.g., if a similar Bill would have required the President's previous sanction). |
Key Takeaway Article 213 provides a temporary legislative bridge during a recess, but it must be approved by the Legislature within six weeks of reassembly to survive, preventing executive overreach.
Sources:
Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Governor, p.316; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), The State Executive, p.272
3. Legislative Oversight and Parliamentary Control (intermediate)
In a parliamentary democracy, the primary responsibility for law-making lies with the Legislature. However,
Article 213 of the Constitution provides a 'stop-gap' arrangement, empowering the Governor to promulgate
Ordinances when the State Legislature is not in session. This power is not a parallel power of legislation but is intended only for emergent situations where immediate action is required
D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, The State Legislature, p.292. Crucially, this is not a discretionary power; the Governor must act on the
aid and advice of the Council of Ministers M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, President, p.198. To ensure legislative supremacy, every Ordinance must be laid before the State Legislature once it reassembles. It automatically ceases to operate
six weeks from the date of reassembly unless it is specifically approved or a resolution of disapproval is passed earlier
D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, The State Legislature, p.291.
The most significant check on this executive power comes from the principle of
Legislative Oversight. Since the executive might be tempted to bypass the Legislature, the judiciary has stepped in to define the limits of this power. In the landmark case of
D. C. Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar (1987), the Supreme Court addressed the practice of 're-promulgation'—where an ordinance is repeatedly re-issued without being converted into an Act. The Court famously termed this a
'fraud on the Constitution' and a subversion of the democratic process. It ruled that while the Governor can issue an ordinance during a recess, using it as a permanent substitute for law-making by bypassing the floor of the House is unconstitutional. This ensures that the executive remains accountable to the people's representatives.
| Feature | Ordinance Power (Article 213) | Legislative Power |
|---|
| Nature | Temporary/Emergent legislation | Permanent/Primary legislation |
| Control | Expires 6 weeks after reassembly | Remains valid until repealed |
| Scope | Co-extensive with State Legislature | Plenary (Full) powers within Lists II and III |
Key Takeaway The Governor's ordinance-making power is a temporary necessity meant for emergencies; its validity depends entirely on subsequent legislative approval, and its mechanical re-promulgation is considered a fraud on the Constitution.
Sources:
Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), The State Legislature, p.291-292; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), President, p.198
4. Veto Power and Reservation of Bills (intermediate)
In our constitutional scheme, a bill passed by the State Legislature does not automatically become law; it requires the
assent of the Governor. Under
Article 200, when a bill is presented to the Governor, they have four distinct paths: they may give their assent, withhold it, return the bill (if it is not a Money Bill) for reconsideration, or
reserve the bill for the consideration of the President Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Governor, p.318. While most of these choices are discretionary, there is one instance where reservation is
obligatory: if the bill endangers the position or the constitutional status of the
State High Court, the Governor must reserve it for the President's review.
Once a bill is reserved, the scene shifts to
Article 201. Here, the President has three options: give assent, withhold assent, or direct the Governor to return the bill to the State Legislature for reconsideration
Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, President, p.196. A critical nuance to remember is that if the State Legislature passes the bill again (with or without amendments) and sends it back,
the President is not bound to give assent. This is a significant departure from the Governor’s power, where the Governor
must give assent if a returned bill is repassed by the house.
However, these legislative powers are not meant to be used to bypass the democratic process. This principle was famously upheld in the case of
D. C. Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar (1987). Although the case primarily dealt with the
ordinance-making power under Article 213, the Supreme Court laid down a landmark rule: the executive cannot use its legislative powers to subvert the Legislature. The court termed the mechanical re-promulgation of ordinances without placing them before the house a
'fraud on the Constitution' Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, Chapter 11, p.238. This judgment serves as a watchdog, ensuring that the Governor’s powers are used for emergent needs and not as a tool to ignore the primary law-making body.
Sources:
Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Governor, p.318; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, President, p.196; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, Chapter 11: The Union Executive, p.238
5. Separation of Powers and Constitutional Morality (exam-level)
At its heart, the
Separation of Powers is a doctrine designed to prevent the concentration of unchecked power in a single branch of government. In a classical sense, the
Legislature makes laws, the
Executive implements them, and the
Judiciary interprets them. However, as we see in
Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), World Constitutions, p. 797, India does not follow a 'strict' separation like the United States. Instead, our system is built on
'checks and balances'. This means that while branches have distinct primary roles, they also have overlapping functions to ensure no one branch becomes tyrannical. For example, the Governor is the head of the State Executive, yet possesses the legislative power to promulgate
ordinances when the Assembly is not in session.
This brings us to the profound concept of
Constitutional Morality. This term suggests that the Constitution is not just a set of dry rules to be followed literally; it is a living document with an underlying 'spirit' or 'ethic.' Constitutional morality demands that high officials, like the Governor, act with restraint and respect for democratic norms. When a Governor uses a power intended for
emergencies—such as the ordinance-making power under Article 213—to bypass the State Legislature repeatedly, they are following the letter of the law but violating its spirit.
This tension was famously addressed in the case of
D. C. Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar. The Supreme Court observed that the Executive cannot 'usurp' the law-making function of the Legislature by mechanically re-promulgating ordinances without seeking legislative approval. The Court termed such an act a
'fraud on the Constitution'. It serves as a reminder that the Judiciary acts as a critical check, ensuring that the Executive's actions do not violate the constitutional framework or the democratic process
Exploring Society: India and Beyond, NCERT Class VIII (2025), The Parliamentary System: Legislature and Executive, p. 154.
| Concept |
Indian Application |
| Separation of Powers |
Based on Checks and Balances rather than water-tight compartments. |
| Constitutional Morality |
Adherence to the spirit of democracy and institutional integrity. |
| Judicial Review |
The power of Courts to strike down Executive actions that bypass the Legislature. |
Key Takeaway Separation of Powers in India is a system of checks and balances where Constitutional Morality acts as the ethical guide, preventing the Executive from using its exceptional powers to subvert the primary role of the Legislature.
Sources:
Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), World Constitutions, p.797; Exploring Society: India and Beyond, NCERT Class VIII (2025), The Parliamentary System: Legislature and Executive, p.154
6. Landmark Judgments: D.C. Wadhwa and Ordinance Raj (exam-level)
To understand the landmark judgment of
D.C. Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar (1987), we must first look at the constitutional 'safety valve' provided under
Article 213. This article empowers the Governor to promulgate
ordinances when the State Legislature is not in session. These ordinances have the same force as an Act of the legislature but are strictly
temporary measures designed to handle emergent situations. However, in the state of Bihar between 1967 and 1981, this power was used to bypass the democratic process entirely. The state government promulgated 256 ordinances and kept them alive for periods ranging from 1 to 14 years by simply re-promulgating them whenever the legislature was prorogued
M. Laxmikanth, Landmark Judgements and Their Impact, p.630.
Dr. D.C. Wadhwa, an economics professor, challenged this practice as a petitioner. He argued that the executive was effectively usurping the law-making function of the legislature. The Supreme Court, in its 1987 ruling, struck a massive blow against this 'Ordinance Raj.' The Court held that the
mechanical re-promulgation of ordinances without placing them before the legislature is a
'fraud on the Constitution.' It ruled that the executive cannot use the ordinance-making power as a substitute for the law-making power of the State Legislature, as doing so subverts the democratic legislative process
D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, The Union Executive, p.238.
This case established a vital constitutional limit: while the Governor has the power to issue an ordinance in an emergency, they cannot keep that law in force indefinitely by repeatedly re-issuing it. This ensures that the
separation of powers is maintained and that the executive remains accountable to the elected representatives of the people. The table below summarizes the shift from the intended use to the prohibited misuse identified in this case:
| Feature | Constitutional Intent (Art. 213) | 'Ordinance Raj' (Prohibited) |
|---|
| Nature of Power | Emergency / Situational | Regular / Substitute for Legislation |
| Duration | Temporary (Lapses after session) | Indefinite (via re-promulgation) |
| Legislative Role | Sovereign Law-maker | Bypassed and Ignored |
Key Takeaway The D.C. Wadhwa case established that the successive re-promulgation of ordinances without legislative approval is unconstitutional and constitutes a 'fraud on the Constitution.'
Sources:
Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Landmark Judgements and Their Impact, p.630; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), The Union Executive, p.238
7. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)
Now that you have mastered the ordinance-making power of the Governor under Article 213, this question tests your ability to apply those rules to a real-world constitutional crisis. You learned that ordinances are temporary laws meant for urgent situations when the legislature is not in session. The case of D. C. Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar is the landmark ruling that defined the limits of this power. In Bihar, the executive had bypassed the democratic process by repeatedly re-issuing the same ordinances for years without ever presenting them to the State Legislature. The Supreme Court stepped in to declare that such mechanical repromulgation is a "fraud on the Constitution," ensuring that the executive cannot permanently usurp the law-making functions of the elected assembly.
To arrive at the correct answer, (A) To repromulgate ordinances, you must connect the temporary nature of an ordinance to the requirement of legislative oversight. If you recall the building blocks of separation of powers, you'll see that the D. C. Wadhwa case was essentially about preventing the Governor from becoming a parallel legislature. The court emphasized that while an ordinance has the same force as an Act, it must eventually be replaced by one. Therefore, any attempt to keep an ordinance alive indefinitely through successive re-issuance without legislative approval is unconstitutional.
UPSC often includes other significant powers of the Governor to distract you. Option (B), the power to appoint a Chief Minister, relates to Article 164 and is more frequently associated with the S. R. Bommai case regarding discretionary powers. Option (C), the power to grant pardon, is a judicial power under Article 161 and has its own set of distinct legal precedents. Option (D) is a common trap; the emoluments and allowances of MLAs are determined by the State Legislature itself, not the Governor. By identifying that the D. C. Wadhwa case specifically targeted the abuse of legislative shortcuts, you can confidently eliminate these judicial and administrative distractions. For further reading, see Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu.