Governor vs Constitution: What Ambedkar Intended vs What We Witness Today

The Supreme Court’s recent judgment on the role of Governors — especially on withholding assent to Bills and delaying decisions — has reopened a fundamental question:

Are Governors acting as constitutional heads or political agents?

Strikingly, this debate resurfaces exactly 75 years after the Constitution was adopted on 26 November 1949 — a reminder that the anxieties of our founding moment were never fully laid to rest.

---

🏛️ When the Constitution Was Born — The Warning Bells Were Heard

In the Constituent Assembly, several members feared that a nominated Governor could become a remote-controlled extension of the Centre — a mini Viceroy.

But Dr. B.R. Ambedkar — the architect of the Constitution — reassured them:

“The Governor under the Constitution is a purely constitutional Governor…

He is not intended to be an agent of the Centre.”

He envisioned:

✔ A Governor loyal to the Constitution,

✘ Not to the political masters in Delhi.

---

⚖️ Ambedkar’s Clarity on Discretionary Powers

Members feared an overriding authority like under the Government of India Act, 1935.

Ambedkar’s response was sharp:

“Our Constitution does not give a general overriding power.

The Governor’s discretion is very limited.”

Limited to rare scenarios like:

• No clear majority after the elections

• Constitutional breakdown

• Bills that directly threaten the federal structure

Not what we see today — Governors holding Bills hostage for months, sometimes over political disagreements.

---

📌 Withholding Assent — The Heart of Today’s Crisis

Members like N.G. Ranga warned:

“A Bill passed by an elected Assembly should not be at the mercy of a nominated Governor.”

Yet today, Governors are doing exactly that:

• Sitting on Bills

• Returning them without justification

• Delaying democracy through inaction

“As soon as possible” — a constitutional phrase

is being interpreted as

➡️ “As late as politically useful.”

This is constitutional subversion by delay.

---

🧠 Ambedkar’s Most Powerful Reminder

“The Governor is not expected to sit in judgment over Bills…

Where the Constitution says he must act on advice, he must act on advice.”

He even joked:

“The Governor’s role is so limited, so ornamental…

few would want to stand for election.”

How tragic that the role he called ornamental has become a weapon in federal politics.

---

🔥 K.R. Narayanan’s Question — More Relevant Than Ever

“Has the Constitution failed us,

or have we failed the Constitution?”

Today, we know the answer:

➡️ It is the people in high office who are failing the Constitution.

The Supreme Court’s responsibility is not just to interpret words —

but to protect the soul behind those words.

If a constitutional office is misused to weaken democracy,

the courts must step in.

---

🧩 Why It Matters for UPSC Mains

This issue lies at the center of:

• Federalism

• Separation of powers

• Cooperative governance

• Democratic accountability

• Spirit vs Letter of the Constitution

Use in:

• GS-II answers

• Federalism Essay

• Polity Ethics case studies

---

✨ High-Impact Closing Line (Write this exactly)

“The Constitution did not fail — we let its guardians fail it.

When the law is twisted to delay democracy, courts must restore the spirit Ambedkar fought for.”