Constitution of India
Article 157: Qualifications for appointment as Governor
Part VI — The States
Article 157 (single clause, no sub-divisions)
WHAT IT SAYS: No person shall be eligible for appointment as Governor unless he is a citizen of India and has completed the age of thirty-five years. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. Only TWO qualifications are prescribed — (a) Indian citizenship, and (b) minimum age of 35 years. 2. No educational qualification, no domicile requirement, no political-party restriction. 3. Disqualifications are NOT in Art. 157 — they appear separately in Art. 158 (no office of profit, no membership of Parliament/State Legislature). 4. Governor need NOT be a resident of the State to which appointed. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Pleasure (Art. 156) operates alongside Art. 157 — eligibility under Art. 157 is necessary but the Governor holds office at the pleasure of the President.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. Government of India Act, 1935 (UK Parliament) — Sections 48–52 (Provincial Executive) Original provision: Under the 1935 Act, provincial Governors were Crown nominees appointed by His Majesty via Royal warrant; no citizenship or age qualifications applied since they were British appointees. What India kept: The institutional framework of an appointed Governor as head of the State executive was retained, but India added democratic eligibility criteria (citizenship + age). 2. Constitution of the United States — Article II, Section 1 (Presidential qualifications) Original provision: The US President must be a natural-born citizen, at least 35 years old, and a resident for 14 years. What India kept: The minimum age of 35 years for the Governor mirrors the US Presidential age threshold. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Appointment over Election — Framers initially proposed an elected Governor (like US state governors) but switched to appointment by the President to prevent Centre-State political conflicts and keep the Governor above party politics. 2. Minimal qualifications deliberately chosen — Only citizenship and age prescribed, unlike the President (Art. 58) who must also be qualified as a Lok Sabha member; this ensures broader pool of eminent persons. 3. No domicile requirement — By convention (Sarkaria Commission), Governors are appointed from outside the State to preserve impartiality; Art. 157 enables this by omitting any residency clause.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 31 May 1949 (CAD Volume VIII) DRAFT ARTICLE: Draft Article 134 (corresponded to final Article 157) KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Chairman, Drafting Committee) — Moved Amendment No. 2061 to substitute the entire Draft Article 134 with a single simple clause prescribing only citizenship and age (35 years) as qualifications. 2. Shri T.T. Krishnamachari (Madras) — Supported the shift from elected to nominated Governor; argued the institution should bring harmony between conflicting groups. 3. Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru (United Provinces) — Accepted nomination principle but insisted that the Governor's discretionary and emergency powers be reduced commensurately. 4. Shri Biswanath Das (Orissa) — Questioned the departure from the Assembly's earlier resolution favouring an elected Governor. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Election vs. Appointment — The original Draft Article 134 had TWO alternatives: (a) qualifications for an elected Governor, and (b) qualifications for an appointed Governor. The first alternative (elected Governor) was dropped; debate centred on the second. 2. Extent of qualifications — The draft second alternative had detailed disqualifications (holding office of profit, being disqualified as MLA, etc.). Ambedkar's substitute stripped all of these, leaving only citizenship + age 35. FINAL OUTCOME: Ambedkar's substitute amendment was adopted WITHOUT debate — the entire original Draft Article 134 was replaced by the current simple one-line provision. AMBEDKAR'S KEY QUOTE: Ambedkar moved the amendment stating the qualification should simply be that no person shall be eligible 'unless he is a citizen of India and has completed the age of thirty-five years.'
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) — Court discussed the Governor's role in maintaining constitutional order; underscored neutrality and integrity expected of the office beyond mere Art. 157 eligibility. 2. Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006) — Court examined the Governor's discretionary powers in Bihar Assembly dissolution; reinforced that the Governor must act with constitutional morality, not political bias. 3. B.P. Singhal v. Union of India (2010) — 5-judge bench held that Governors cannot be removed arbitrarily; Doctrine of Pleasure under Art. 156 is not absolute; removal must be for valid and compelling reasons, not mere change of Central Government. 4. State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2023) — Court ruled Governors cannot indefinitely withhold or delay assent to State Bills; must act in time-bound manner as constitutional heads, not political actors. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. None directly on Art. 157 itself; however, in Rameshwar Prasad (2006), Justice Arijit Pasayat noted in a separate opinion that Governor's immunity under Art. 361 does not extend to unconstitutional acts. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. Sarkaria Commission (1988) — Recommended that Governors should be eminent persons from outside the State, appointed in consultation with the Chief Minister; tenure of 5 years should normally be respected. 2. Punchhi Commission (2010) — Recommended that the nominee should not have been active in politics for at least 2 years before appointment; proposed removal only through impeachment by State Legislature, not at Centre's pleasure.