Constitution of India
Article 154: Executive power of State
Part VI — The States (Chapter II — The State Executive)
Clause (1)
WHAT IT SAYS: The executive power of the State shall be vested in the Governor and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with the Constitution. WHAT IT MEANS: The Governor is the formal/nominal executive head of the State; all executive actions of the State government are carried out in his name, either personally or via subordinate officers (Chief Secretary, District Collectors, etc.). KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Aid and Advice — though power is vested in the Governor, he must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers (read with Article 163), except in rare discretionary situations.
Clause (2)(a)
WHAT IT SAYS: Nothing in this article shall be deemed to transfer to the Governor any functions conferred by any existing law on any other authority. WHAT IT MEANS: Functions already assigned by pre-existing laws to statutory authorities, local bodies, or other officials remain undisturbed — Article 154 does not automatically centralise all executive functions in the Governor. KEY DOCTRINE: Non-disturbance of Existing Statutory Functions — preserves continuity of governance by protecting pre-Constitution administrative arrangements.
Clause (2)(b)
WHAT IT SAYS: Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament or the State Legislature from conferring by law functions on any authority subordinate to the Governor. WHAT IT MEANS: Parliament or State Legislatures can create new offices or authorities and assign them executive functions, without violating Article 154 — this enables delegation and administrative decentralisation. KEY DOCTRINE: Legislative Supremacy in Delegation — the legislature retains full power to distribute executive functions among various authorities below the Governor.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. British Parliamentary System — Sections 49–53 of the Government of India Act, 1935 Original provision: The Governor exercised executive authority of the Province subject to the control of the Governor-General and the Crown. What India kept: The concept of vesting executive power in a single constitutional head (Governor) who acts on ministerial advice. 2. Article 53 of the Indian Constitution (Union counterpart) Draft Article 130 (Article 154) was expressly modelled on Draft Article 42 (Article 53), mirroring the President's executive power at the State level. What India kept: Identical clause structure vesting executive power in one head exercisable directly or through subordinates. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Governor as an appointed (not elected) head — Because framers feared elected Governors would rival Chief Ministers and create dual power centres in States. 2. Executive power made subject to 'this Constitution' — To ensure the Governor cannot act outside constitutional bounds, unlike the British Crown's prerogative powers. 3. Clause (2)(b) allowing Legislature to delegate functions — To enable administrative flexibility in a vast, diverse federal system with multiple tiers of governance.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 30th May 1949 and 16th October 1949 (CAD Volumes VIII & X) Draft Article Number: 130 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Chairman, Drafting Committee) — Opposed all proposed amendments, reminded the Assembly that Draft Article 130 was a reproduction of Draft Article 42 (Article 53) and similar amendments had already been rejected. 2. Prof. K.T. Shah (Bihar) — Proposed replacing 'may' with 'shall' to make it mandatory for the Governor to exercise power in accordance with the Constitution and law. 3. Another member — Proposed that the Governor's power be exercised 'on behalf of the people' to emphasise popular sovereignty. 4. A third member — Proposed replacing 'transfer' in Clause (2) with 'authorise or empower', arguing functions are role-specific and cannot be transferred. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. 'May' vs 'Shall' — Prof. K.T. Shah argued 'may' made compliance optional; Ambedkar defended the original drafting. 2. 'On behalf of the people' — A member wanted popular sovereignty explicitly stated; Ambedkar considered it unnecessary given the overall constitutional scheme. 3. Word 'transfer' in Clause (2) — Challenged as inaccurate; Ambedkar rejected the amendment. FINAL OUTCOME: All three proposed amendments were negatived; Draft Article adopted on 30 May 1949; later, language was further aligned with Draft Article 42 (Article 53) on 16 October 1949 by substituting 'shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him' for the earlier 'may be exercised by him'. NOTE: The President (Dr. Rajendra Prasad) noted that this article was 'word for word the same as article 70' (renumbered) relating to the Union, requiring no lengthy discussion.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) — SC held the Governor is a constitutional/formal head who must exercise powers only on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers; real executive power vests in the CoM. 2. State of U.P. v. Babu Ram Upadhya (1961) — SC distinguished executive power under Article 154 from constitutional powers of the Governor (e.g., pleasure doctrine under Art. 310), holding they are separate and Article 154 does not cover all Governor's functions. 3. Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006) — SC held the Governor's powers cannot be exercised arbitrarily or for political purposes; dissolution of Bihar Assembly declared unconstitutional. 4. Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016) — SC ruled the Governor cannot act arbitrarily even under discretionary power; must conform to constitutional morality and democratic norms. 5. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) — SC held the Governor's report recommending President's Rule is open to judicial review; executive power must be exercised constitutionally. 6. K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa (1953) — SC clarified that executive power vested in the Governor is exercised in accordance with the Constitution and applicable laws, and is subject to judicial review. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. Justices Gajendragadkar & Wanchoo in State of U.P. v. Babu Ram Upadhya (1960) — Dissented from the majority view that Governor's pleasure power under Art. 310 falls outside Art. 154; held the power to dismiss was executive power exercisable under Art. 154(1). SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. D.D. Basu — The Governor is the constitutional head of the State; Article 154 must be read with Articles 163 and 166 to understand the real scope of executive power. 2. M.P. Jain — Article 154 is the state-level counterpart of Article 53; executive power is residuary in nature and includes all governmental functions not assigned to the legislature or judiciary.