A number of major gubernatorial appointments were announced by President Droupadi Murmu late on Thursday (March 5).The most significant change was in poll-bound West Bengal, where Governor C V Ananda Bose resigned citing “personal reasons”. He was replaced by Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi, who had been at loggerheads with the DMK-led government in the state.West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee expressed shock over the change and claimed that Bose could have resigned “under pressure” ahead of the Legislative Assembly polls. She also said in a post on X: “Union Home Minister just informed me that Shri R N Ravi is being appointed as Governor of West Bengal. He (Home Minister) never consulted with me as per the established convention in this regard.”Relations between Governors and Opposition-ruled state governments have been increasingly fraught over the last few years. While Bose’s tenure in West Bengal was not free from friction, it was seen as less confrontational than his predecessor Jagdeep Dhankhar’s term.But beyond Mamata’s claims of pressure, another aspect worth looking into is her assertion of not being consulted. Are states really required to be consulted over governor appointments? And why have state governments’ relations with Governors been so tense?Article 153 of the Constitution says: “There shall be a Governor for each State.” A 1956 amendment allows one person to serve as Governor for two or more states.Article 155 says that the “Governor of a State shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal”.Story continues below this adAnd, under Article 156, “the Governor shall hold office during the pleasure of the President”, but their normal term of office will be five years. If the President withdraws their pleasure before the completion of five years, the Governor has to step down.The President acts on the aid and advice of the Prime Minister and the Union Council of Ministers, which means it is the Union government that appoints and removes Governors. In this respect, and by definition, the Governor of a state or a Lieutenant Governor of a Union Territory is a representative of the President to a particular elected Council of ministers.This makes it clear that there is no Constitutional requirement for the Union government to consult states before appointing governors.Story continues below this adBut this does not mean that there is no convention for consultations. Chief Minister Banerjee, in one of her X posts Thursday, invoked the “spirit” of the Constitution. “The Centre must respect the principles of cooperative federalism and refrain from taking unilateral decisions that erode democratic conventions and the dignity of States,” she posted.In practice, appointments to the posts of Governors and Lieutenant Governors have space for discussions between state or Union Territory governments. A panel of around three potential candidates for such posts are usually sent by the state or Union Terrotory government to the Union Home Ministry to take a final call on the appointment.There have also been calls to amend the Constitution to codify the consultation process. This was among the recommendations by two prominent government commissions that looked into Centre-state relations — the Justice Rajinder Singh Sarkaria report of 1988 and the Justice Madan Mohan Punchhi report of 2010. Both backed amending Article 155 to ensure that the Centre consulted with the chief minister of a state before appointing a Governor.Separately, the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, in a consultation paper submitted in 2002, went beyond the Sarkaria Commission’s recommendations and suggested that Article 155 and 156 be amended and the appointment of the Governor be entrusted to a committee comprising the Prime Minister, Union Home Minister, Lok Sabha Speaker and the chief minister of the state concerned.Story continues below this adOf course, no such amendments have been made to the Constitution, and the power to appoint remains firmly in the hands of the Union government.The powers of the GovernorThe position of the Governor is envisaged as an apolitical head who must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers of the state.However, the Governor enjoys certain powers under the Constitution — such as giving or withholding assent to a Bill passed by the state legislature; determining the time needed for a party to prove its majority in the state Assembly; or, in cases such as a hung verdict in an election, which party must be called first to prove its majority.Also Read | SC clarifies Governor’s powers: How it answered 14 questions referred by PresidentStory continues below this adThe extent of these powers has sparked debate, with Governors such as Ravi sitting on Bills cleared by the state Assembly. An April 2025 Supreme Court ruling held that Ravi’s delay in granting assent was unconstitutional and set specific timelines for action.After a Presidential reference over the ruling, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled in November 2025 that no timelines can be fixed for the President and Governor to act on Bills passed by legislatures. But it also underlined that there will be “limited judicial scrutiny” for “prolonged, unexplained and indefinite” delay in granting assent to Bills.Behind the frictionsOver the decades, Governors have been seen as acting on the behest of the central government in power at the time, and have been accused by state governments, especially those in opposition, as acting as “agents of the Centre”.The last few years have seen bitter exchanges involving governors such as Bose and Dhankhar (both Bengal), Ravi (Tamil Nadu), and Arif Mohammed Khan (Kerala). While the tussle between successive Governors in West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Kerala is well documented, a similar tussle was the mainstay of political activity during the Aam Aadmi Party’s 11-year rule in Delhi. The AAP alleged that the Union Home Ministry had stalled the administrative machinery of Delhi through the office of the Lieutenant Governors.Story continues below this adAlso Read | New LG Sandhu: Veteran diplomat, India’s Ambassador to the US during Trump 1.0Some have called into question the very nature of the Governor’s selection — appointment by the Centre, not election.The Constituent Assembly extensively discussed this issue but did not favour elections. Its main reasoning was that the Governor, in the discharge of his functions, is required to act according to ministerial advice.The Justice Punchhi report says, “Jawaharlal Nehru apprehended that an elected Governor could encourage separatist provincial tendencies. Ultimately, it was decided that the Governor be appointed by the president for a term of five years but holding office during the pleasure of the President.”Story continues below this adBut experts say the office may not really be apolitical, as was envisaged. “Governors have become political appointees,” constitutional expert Dr Faizan Mustafa had told The Indian Express earlier. “The Constituent Assembly envisaged governor to be apolitical. But politicians become Governors and then resign to fight elections.”Constitutional expert Alok Prasanna of Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy had said: “The CM is answerable to the people. But the Governor is answerable to no one except the Centre. You can sugarcoat it with ideas of constitutional morality and values, but the truth is there is a fundamental defect in the Constitution.”Also Read | What explains the frequent disagreements between state governments and Governors?Indeed, there is no provision for impeaching the Governor, and in the event of a particularly bitter and prolonged tussle between the state and central governments, the Centre can, up to five years, use Raj Bhavan to indefinitely create problems for the state.Story continues below this adIn 2001, the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, set up by the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government, had noted: “… Because the Governor owes his appointment and his continuation in the office to the Union Council of Ministers, in matters where the Central Government and the State Government do not see eye to eye, there is the apprehension that he is likely to act in accordance with the instructions, if any, received from the Union Council of Ministers… Indeed, the Governors today are being pejoratively called the ‘agents of the Centre’.”(With inputs from Jatin Anand)