The position of Governor in India is constitutionally defined, with powers encompassing executive (appointing Chief Ministers, administration), legislative (assenting to bills, summoning assemblies), judicial (pardons), and discretionary domains (hung assemblies, presidential rule). Critics, however, argue the role is often misused for political ends, with Governors perceived as extension of the Central government rather than impartial constitutional heads.

Prominent controversies include delays in bill assent, labeled “pocket vetoes,” which obstruct state legislation—prompting judicial scrutiny, such as in the Supreme Court’s Tamil Nadu v. Governor ruling, which barred Governors from indefinitely withholding assent. Discretion in hung assemblies and recommendations for President’s Rule have similarly been questioned, notably in Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Uttarakhand.

Reform efforts - Sarkaria (1988), Bommai (1994), Punchhi (2010), and more—highlight the need for depoliticized appointments, limited discretionary powers, and tenure stability .

In essence, while designed as symbolic custodians, Governors frequently wield strategic influence—underscoring the need to reform the office to better protect India's democratic and federal ethos.