Discretionary

 powers  of  the  President  and  Governor  

The   President   as   well   as   the   Governor   is   the   constitutional   or   formal   head   of   the  
State.   Both   exercises   his   powers   and   functions   conferred   on   him   by   or   under   the  
Constitution  (formal  constitutional  powers)  on  the  aid  and  advice  of  his  Council  
of   Ministers,   save   in   spheres   where   the   Governor   is   required   by   or   under   the  
Constitution   to   exercise   his   functions   in   his   discretion.   In   the   Constitution,   the  
expression   “acts   in   his   discretion”   is   used   only   in   relation   to   the   powers   and  
functions  of  the  Governor  and  not  in  the  case  of  the  President.  

The   Governor   enjoys   some   constitutionally   conferred   discretionary   powers   in  

addition   to   certain   situational   or   contingent   powers   exercisable   in   a   few   well-­‐
known   exceptional   situations.   Whereas,   the   President   has   no   formal  
discretionary  powers  as  such  under  the  Constitution,  but  in  reality  exercises  his  
discretion  in  the  given  circumstances:  

a) In   the   choice   of   Prime   Minister   (in   case   of   Governor,   Chief   Minister),  

restricted   though   this   choice   is   by   the   paramount   consideration   that   he  
should  command  a  majority  in  the  House;  
b) The   dismissal   of   a   Government   which   has   lost   its   majority   in   the   House,  
but  refuses  to  quit  office;  
c) The   dissolution   of   the   House   where   an   appeal   to   the   country   is  
necessitous,   although   in   this   area   the   head   of   State   should   avoid   getting  
involved   in   politics   and   must   be   advised   by   his   Prime   Minister   (Chief  
Minister)  who  will  eventually  take  the  responsibility  for  the  step.  

Governor’s  Constitutionally  conferred  discretionary  powers  

a) Where   a   Governor   is   appointed   an   administrator   of   an   adjoining   Union  

Territory   he   shall   exercise   his   functions   as   such   administrator  
independently  of  his  Council  of  Ministers.  (Article  239(2))  
b) Under  Article  356,  the  Governor  can  send  a  report  to  the  President  that  a  
situation   has   arisen   in   which   the   government   of   the   State   cannot   be  
carried  on  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  this  Constitution.  In  doing  
so,  the  Governor  will  be  justified  in  exercising  his  discretion  even  against  
the  aid  and  advice  of  his  Council  of  Ministers.  
c) Under  Article  200,  the  Governor  has  the  right  to  reserve  for  consideration  
any   Bill   which   in   his   opinion   becomes   law,   would   derogate   from   the  
powers  of  the  High  Court  and  endanger  the  position  given  to  High  Court  
under  the  Constitution.  
d) Determining   the   amount   payable   by   the   Government   of   Assam,  
Meghalaya,   Tripura   and   Mizoram   to   an   Autonomous   Tribal   District  
Council   as   royalty   accruing   from   licences   or   leases   for   mineral  
exploration.  (Para  9,  VI  schedule)  
e) Special   responsibility   of   the   Governor   of   the   Nagaland   State.(   Article  
371A)  

Barring   the   abovementioned   situations,   in   all   other   matters   the   President   and  
Governor   shall   always   act   on   the   aid   and   advice   of   the   Council   of   Ministers.  
Neither  of  them  is  to  exercise  the  executive  functions  personally.  Wherever  the  
Constitution   requires   the   satisfaction   of   the   President   or   the   Governor   for   the  
exercise  of  any  Constitutional  power  or  function,  the  satisfaction  required  by  the  
Constitution  is  not  the  personal  satisfaction  of  the  President  or  of  the  Governor,  
but  it  is  the  satisfaction  of  the  Council  of  Ministers.1  

M.P.  Special  Police  Establishment  v.  State  of  M.P  

The   Supreme   Court   had   to   consider   whether   a   Governor   can   act   in   his   discretion  
and  against  the  aid  and  advice  of  the  Council  of  Ministers  in  a  matter  of  grant  of  
sanction   for   prosecution   of   Ministers   for   offences   under   the   Prevention   of  
Corruption  Act  and/or  under  the  Indian  Penal  Code?    

The   Court   held,   in   a   matter   of   grant   of   sanction   to   prosecute,   the   Governor   is  

normally   required   to   act   on   aid   and   advice   of   the   Council   of   Ministers   and   not   in  
his   discretion.   However,   an   exception   may   arise   while   considering   grant   of  
sanction   to   prosecute   a   Chief   Minister   or   a   Minister   where   as   a   matter   of  
propriety  the  Governor  may  have  to  act  in  his  own  discretion.  Similar  would  be  
the   situation   if   the   Council   of   Ministers   disables   itself   or   disentitles   itself   from  
advising   the   Governor   in   the   matter.   On   certain   occasions   if   bias   becomes  
apparent  or  the  decision  of  the  Council  of  Ministers  is  shown  to  be  irrational  and  
based  on  non-­‐consideration  of  relevant  factors,  the  Governor  would  be  right,  on  
the  facts  of  that  case,  to  act  in  his  own  discretion  and  grant  sanction.  If  a  prima  
facie   case   is   clearly   made   out   and   sanction   to   prosecute   high   functionaries   is  
refused  or  withheld,  democracy  will  be  at  peril.  Therefore,  the  Court  upheld  the  
order   of   the   Governor   sanctioning   prosecution   of   the   Ministers   based   on   the  
report  of  the  Lokayukta.  

                                                                                                               
1  For  detailed  analysis  see,  Samsher  Singh  v.  State  of  Punjab,  M.P.  Special  Police  

Establishment  v.  State  of  M.P.