In a democracy, constitutional offices derive legitimacy not from appointment alone, but from the conduct they inspire
Devolution of Office: A Presidential Prerogative
The appointment of a State Governor in India is constitutionally regulated under Article 155 of the Constitution of India, which provides that the Governor of a State shall be appointed by the President. This provision, although couched in neutral terms, is operationalised through a convention that vests the discretion of nomination with the Union Government. Therefore, the nomination of PS Sreedharan Pillai’s successor: Ravi S. Raju - as the new Governor of Goa by Presidential Decree dated: 13 July, 2025, although formally endorsed by the President of India, must be understood as a political act exercised on the advice of the Union Council of Ministers under Article 74(1) of the Constitution of India.
Eligibility and Executive Experience - Controversy in Perspective
Ravi S. Raju, a career politician with a long affiliation to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), served earlier as the Union Minister of Civil Aviation. His tenure witnessed critical decisions affecting the privatisation of airports and a restructuring of Air India’s disinvestment a process mired in controversy.
The post of Governor requires, under Article 157, that the nominee be an Indian citizen and be at least 35 years of age. However, beyond these elementary qualifications, there is no institutional check on partisanship or past conduct. The propriety of appointing a politically active minister to a constitutional post that requires neutrality and discretion is therefore deeply debatable.
Legacy of Pillai and the Fork in the Road
Governor PS Pillai, whose term came to an abrupt end this month, had adopted a conciliatory yet firm stance on matters such as the Mhadei river dispute, promotion of local heritage legislation, and environmental protection concerns surrounding the Mollem biodiversity corridor. His refusal to hastily assent to the controversial Goa Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Bill, 2024, had earned him praise from civil society and criticism from certain State Government quarters.
The shift in gubernatorial leadership raises concerns about the continuity of Pillai’s legacy, especially in safeguarding Goa’s ecological and cultural interests. Will environmental considerations, community consultations, and decentralised governance still find a receptive ear in Raj Bhavan? The question remains unanswered.
Majoritarianism and Collapse of Opposition
Goa’s Legislative Assembly, once characterised by robust debate and democratic pluralism, today reflects a tilted parliamentary landscape. Of the 40-member Assembly, more than two-thirds belong to the ruling BJP or are aligned with it due to frequent defections from the Congress Party, a trend that began post-2019 and accelerated after the 2022 elections. The principle of collective opposition, essential for legislative checks and balances, has become functionally irrelevant in Goa.
In such an environment, the Governor’s role as a constitutional check on the State Executive assumes greater importance. The use of discretionary power under Article 200, which empowers the Governor to grant or withhold assent to Bills passed by the Legislative Assembly, has now become a focal point of constitutional debate.
Withholding Assent - A Subtle Instrument of Control
The Constitution permits a Governor to withhold assent, reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President, or return the Bill for reconsideration. These provisions, while enabling a layer of scrutiny, can also be used to indefinitely stall progressive or politically inconvenient legislation especially when the Governor acts not as an impartial arbiter but as an extended arm of the Union Executive.
The Supreme Court, in Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016), reiterated that the Governor is not an agent of the Centre but a constitutional authority in their own right. However, this doctrine faces challenge when Governors are perceived as owing allegiance to the ruling party that recommended their appointment, particularly since they hold office at the pleasure of the President under Article 156(1) a phrase that in practice binds them to the Union Government’s expectations.
Nationalisation versus State Autonomy
The concern of rapid nationalisation of Goan institutions is not merely symbolic. From land acquisition for central projects to the proliferation of national education policies without local adaptation, Goa’s administrative autonomy has been gradually eroded. The increasing invisibility of Konkani and Portuguese legal traditions, the standardisation of civil services, and the centralisation of fiscal controls point to an architecture of governance in which the Governor could either act as a guardian of federal principles or a conduit for national directives.
Can Assent Ever Be Independent?
Given that both the President of India (Droupadi Murmu) and the new Governor (Ravi S. Raju) are political appointees of the ruling party, and that the opposition within the State Assembly has been systematically disempowered, the independence of gubernatorial assent becomes a theoretical luxury.
A Caution for Goa’s Democratic Integrity
As Goa navigates its democratic future under the shadow of a newly appointed Governor with political antecedents, the real question is not whether the Constitution has been violated, but whether it has been bypassed in spirit. The framers of the Constitution envisioned the Governor as a neutral umpire, not an ideological validator. In practice, however, the institution of the Governor risks becoming an extension of majoritarian power, especially when the principles of federalism, local autonomy, and opposition accountability are weakened.
In a democracy, constitutional offices derive legitimacy not from appointment alone, but from the conduct they inspire.
