It is argued by some that the office of Governor needs to be abolished as it has outlived its relevance. Critically examine in the context of India.

The governor is the executive head of the state, who is appointed by the President and remains on his position during the pleasure of the President. The post has remained controversial since its inception, because of the involved politics. There have been demands for its abolition as well.

Factors supporting abolition:

• Governors have played a very partisan role regarding government formation, especially in case of an unclear majority.
• The governors are required to behave in a non-partisan manner, but many come from extremely political backgrounds and have behaved in a biased manner towards some parties.
• They are often called as the agents of centre because of their biased nature tilting towards centre.
• In past, there have been various instances of declaration of state emergency and dissolution of state legislative assembly by the governor in case of opposition party in power.
• Some governors have made remarks violating the dignity of their offices.
• The biased behavior of the governor affects the faith in the institution of the governor.

Factors opposing abolition:

• A governor is the link between the Centre and state.
• The governor can act as a medium for enabling cooperative federalism.
• Governors can ensure that a satisfactory solution is found in the event of a hung assembly. Thus the risk of the state remaining in limbo is reduced.

Way forward:

Introducing fixed tenure for the governor and not selecting people recently involved in politics as governors. Also, the chief minister of the concerned state should be consulted before appointing the governor.