Which one of the following statements is correct?

1. The Constitutional Position of the Governor (basic)

To understand the State Government in India, we first look at Part VI of the Constitution, which establishes a parliamentary system for the states that mirrors the one at the Union level. At the heart of this system is the Governor, who serves as the chief executive head of the state. However, much like the President of India, the Governor is a nominal (titular or de jure) executive, meaning they act as the formal head while the real power (de facto) rests with the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Governor, p.313.

The State Executive consists of the Governor, the Chief Minister, the Council of Ministers, and the Advocate General of the state. It is important to note a key difference from the Union level: while the Union has a Vice-President, there is no office of Vice-Governor in the states. Every executive action taken by a state government is formally taken in the name of the Governor Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Governor, p.313.

Originally, the Constitution under Article 153 envisioned one Governor for every state. However, as the administrative needs of the country evolved, the 7th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1956 was passed. This crucial amendment made it possible to appoint the same person as Governor for two or more states simultaneously, a practice often seen today when a Governor is given additional charge of a neighboring state Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, The State Executive, p.269.

Feature	The Governor	The Chief Minister
Status	Head of the State	Head of the Government
Authority	Nominal / De Jure Executive	Real / De Facto Executive
Analogy	Analogous to the President	Analogous to the Prime Minister

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Governor, p.313; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, The State Executive, p.269

2. 7th Constitutional Amendment Act and Appointment (basic)

In our previous step, we looked at the basics of the Governor's office. Now, let’s dive into a transformative moment in Indian constitutional history: the 7th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1956. Originally, the Constitution under Article 153 followed a simple rule: 'There shall be a Governor for each State.' This meant every state had its own exclusive Governor. However, as the map of India was being redrawn during the linguistic reorganization of states, the government needed more administrative flexibility.

The 7th Constitutional Amendment Act (1956) modified Article 153 to make it possible to appoint the same person as Governor for two or more States M. Laxmikanth, Governor, p.313. This is a common sight today; for instance, when a vacancy arises suddenly, the Governor of a neighboring state is often given 'additional charge' of that state. This amendment ensures that the executive machinery of a state never comes to a standstill due to the absence of a dedicated head.

Beyond just managing multiple states, this amendment also introduced Article 239(2). This allows the President to appoint a Governor of a State as the administrator of an adjoining Union Territory. When a Governor wears this 'second hat' as a UT administrator, they must exercise their functions independently of their State Council of Ministers D. D. Basu, The State Executive, p.274. This highlights the Governor’s dual role: acting as the constitutional head of a state while simultaneously serving as an agent of the Central Government M. Laxmikanth, Governor, p.313.

Feature	Original Provision (Pre-1956)	Post-7th Amendment (1956)
Number of States	One Governor per State.	One Governor can serve two or more States.
UT Administration	No specific provision for state Governors.	Governor can be appointed as Administrator of an adjoining UT.
Decision Making in UT	N/A	Acts independently of the State Council of Ministers.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Governor, p.313; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, The State Executive, p.274; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, The State Executive, p.269

3. Judicial Appointments: High Courts vs Subordinate Courts (intermediate)

When we look at the judicial branch within a state, it is easy to assume that the Governor, as the formal head of the state executive, appoints all state-level judges. However, the Indian Constitution maintains a sharp distinction between the Higher Judiciary (High Courts) and the Subordinate Judiciary (District Courts and below) to balance state autonomy with national judicial integrity.

For the High Courts, the power of appointment rests entirely with the President of India, not the Governor. Under Article 217, the President appoints every judge of a High Court. While the Governor is not the appointing authority, they play a consultative role. Specifically, when appointing the Chief Justice of a High Court, the President consults the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the Governor of the state concerned. For other judges, the Chief Justice of that particular High Court is also consulted Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, High Court, p.354. This ensures that while the Union executive handles the appointment, the state executive's perspective is heard.

In contrast, the Subordinate Courts (District Courts) fall more directly under the state's purview. According to Article 233, the Governor is the actual appointing authority for District Judges. However, this power is not absolute; the Governor must make these appointments, postings, and promotions in consultation with the High Court of that state Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Subordinate Courts, p.363. This mechanism protects the independence of the lower judiciary from purely political interference by ensuring the state's highest court has a say in who joins the bench.

To keep these roles clear, remember this comparison:

Feature	High Court Judges	District Judges
Appointing Authority	President of India	Governor of the State
Governor's Role	Consulted by the President	Primary Appointer (consults High Court)
Constitutional Basis	Article 217	Article 233

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), High Court, p.354; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Subordinate Courts, p.363

4. Governance of UTs with Legislatures (Delhi & Puducherry) (intermediate)

While the governance of Indian States follows a fairly uniform pattern, the Union Territories (UTs) are unique because they are administered directly by the President of India. According to Articles 239 to 241 in Part VIII of the Constitution, every UT is managed by an administrator appointed by the President, though the administrative systems are not uniform across all territories Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 40: Union Territories, p.411. For UTs like Delhi and Puducherry, which have their own Legislative Assemblies, the governance structure adds a layer of parliamentary democracy that mirrors a State, but with a few critical constitutional distinctions.

The most vital distinction lies in the appointment of the Chief Minister. In a regular State, the Governor appoints the Chief Minister Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 31: Chief Minister, p.325. However, in UTs with a legislature, the President (not the Lieutenant Governor) appoints the Chief Minister. This underscores the fact that the Lieutenant Governor (LG) functions as an agent of the President rather than a traditional constitutional head of state. Furthermore, while a State Governor has a wide range of powers over the State List, the legislative power of the Delhi Assembly, for instance, is restricted; it cannot make laws regarding public order, police, and land, which remain under the direct control of the Central Government Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 40: Union Territories, p.412.

Feature	States	UTs with Legislatures (Delhi/Puducherry)
Executive Head	Governor (Constitutional Head)	Lieutenant Governor (Agent of the President)
Appointing Authority of CM	The Governor	The President
Legislative Competence	Full authority over State List	Restricted (e.g., Delhi cannot legislate on Police, Land, Public Order)

Special provisions for Delhi were introduced via the 69th Constitutional Amendment Act, which redesignated it as the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi. Under Article 239AA, the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly, even though they are formally appointed by the President. This creates a unique dual-governance model where the LG must generally act on the "aid and advice" of the Council of Ministers, except in matters where they have discretionary powers or where the President's authority is paramount.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 40: Union Territories, p.411-412; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 31: Chief Minister, p.325

5. Tenure and Removal: The Doctrine of Pleasure (exam-level)

In the architecture of Indian federalism, the Governor’s tenure is a unique blend of a fixed term and total vulnerability. According to Article 156 of the Constitution, a Governor is appointed for a normal term of five years. However, this five-year period is not a guarantee. The Constitution explicitly states that the Governor holds office during the "pleasure of the President" Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Governor, p.315. This means that the President (acting on the advice of the Union Council of Ministers) can terminate the Governor’s appointment at any time, even before the completion of the five-year term.

What makes this "Doctrine of Pleasure" particularly significant is the absence of prescribed grounds or procedures for removal. Unlike the President (who can be impeached) or High Court and Supreme Court Judges (who can be removed by Parliament for 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity'), the Constitution remains silent on why or how a Governor should be dismissed Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, The State Executive, p.269. This lack of security of tenure has historically allowed the Union government to replace Governors when a different political party comes to power at the Centre. For example, in 1989 and 1991, dozens of Governors were replaced following shifts in the Union Government Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Governor, p.315.

While the Governor can be removed or transferred to another state for the remainder of their term, they also have the autonomy to exit voluntarily. A Governor can resign at any time by addressing a resignation letter directly to the President. It is also important to note that the Supreme Court, in the Surya Narain case (1981), held that this "pleasure of the President" is not justiciable, meaning the Governor does not have a constitutional right to security of tenure that can be challenged in court simply because they were asked to leave Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Governor, p.315.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Governor, p.315; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, The State Executive, p.269

6. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

This question brings together your understanding of the State Executive and the specific constitutional nuances that distinguish the office of the Governor from other constitutional authorities. To arrive at the correct answer, you must apply the concept of the Doctrine of Pleasure. While the Constitution provides a clear impeachment process for the President and a removal procedure for Judges, Article 156 simply states that the Governor holds office during the pleasure of the President. Because the Constitution does not prescribe specific grounds or a formal procedure for removal, Statement (C) is correct. This illustrates a key UPSC theme: distinguishing between offices that have 'security of tenure' and those that serve at the discretion of the Union executive.

Understanding why the other options are incorrect is vital for avoiding classic UPSC traps. Statement (A) ignores the 7th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1956, which allows one person to serve as Governor for two or more States—a provision often tested to see if students know historical constitutional evolutions. Statement (B) is a jurisdictional trap; while the Governor is part of the consultation process, the President retains the power to appoint High Court Judges to ensure judicial independence from state politics, as detailed in Indian Polity by M. Laxmikanth. Similarly, Statement (D) tricks students by applying state-level logic to Union Territories. In UTs with legislatures like Delhi or Puducherry, the President (not the Lt. Governor) appoints the Chief Minister, a distinction found in Introduction to the Constitution of India by D.D. Basu that highlights the Union's ultimate administrative control over these territories.