As several Opposition-ruled States witness confrontations over the Governor’s address to the legislature, a largely ceremonial constitutional practice has become politically charged. What was designed as a routine articulation of an elected government’s agenda is now testing the boundaries of constitutional convention, federal propriety, and the Governor’s role within India’s parliamentary democracy.
Why the Governor’s Address Matters
The Governor’s address at the start of the legislative year is not merely a formality. It is the moment when the elected government formally places its policy priorities, achievements, and legislative roadmap before the House and, indirectly, the public. Disruptions to this process raise deeper questions about democratic accountability and institutional neutrality.
Recent incidents in States such as Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Karnataka — where Governors have skipped portions of the speech, curtailed it drastically, or avoided it altogether — have transformed a procedural issue into a constitutional controversy.
Colonial Origins and Early Constitutional Practice
The roots of the Governor’s address lie in Section 63 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which allowed Governors to address provincial legislatures at their discretion. With the introduction of provincial autonomy in 1937, however, a convention emerged: the speech was drafted in consultation with the Council of Ministers and reflected the government’s legislative agenda.
During the Constituent Assembly debates, this understanding was carried forward. It was clearly envisaged that the Governor’s address would express the policy of the elected Council of Ministers, not the personal opinions of the Governor.
What the Constitution Actually Says
The Constitution makes a clear distinction between two kinds of addresses:
- Article 175 states that the Governor may address either House or both Houses of the State legislature. This is discretionary and rarely invoked.
- Article 176 mandates that the Governor shall address the legislature at the commencement of the first session after a general election and at the first session of every year.
The Article 176 address is compulsory, prepared by the Council of Ministers, and outlines past performance and future policy. The Constitution further requires that the legislature discuss this address through a ‘Motion of Thanks’, allowing both the government and Opposition to debate the stated policies.
Judicial Interpretation: Governor as Constitutional Head
The Supreme Court has repeatedly clarified the limited, constitutional role of the Governor. In Shamsher Singh vs State of Punjab, the Court held that the Governor is a constitutional head who must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in narrowly defined discretionary areas.
This position was reaffirmed in Nabam Rebia vs Deputy Speaker, where the Court explicitly stated that the Governor’s address under Articles 175 and 176 must be delivered on ministerial advice. The Governor has no independent policy discretion in this matter.
The Current Flashpoints in States
Recent controversies point to a departure from established practice:
- In Tamil Nadu, Governor “” skipped portions of the Cabinet-approved address in 2022 and 2023 and did not deliver the address in 2024.
- In Kerala, the Governor omitted parts of the policy speech drafted by the Council of Ministers.
- In Karnataka, the Governor delivered only a brief two-line address before leaving the joint sitting of the legislature.
These actions have intensified tensions between Raj Bhavans and elected governments, particularly in Opposition-ruled States.
Oath of Office and Constitutional Responsibility
Under Article 159, every Governor swears to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law.” Acting contrary to settled constitutional conventions and Supreme Court rulings raises serious questions about adherence to this oath.
While friction between Governors and State governments is not new — dating back to the 1960s — the frequency and intensity of recent incidents, including complete non-delivery of the address, mark a significant escalation.
Federalism, Politicisation, and the Governor’s Office
Governors occupy a dual position: they are nominal heads of the State executive, akin to the President at the Union level, and also appointees of the Centre. This design aims to preserve national unity but carries the risk of politicisation.
Federalism, a basic feature of the Constitution, requires that Governors do not undermine the authority of popularly elected State governments. When Raj Bhavans are perceived as partisan actors, constitutional balance is strained.
Possible Way Forward
Calls to abolish the Governor’s post have surfaced repeatedly, but such demands are unlikely to gain traction given India’s quasi-federal structure. More realistic reforms lie in improving the appointment process.
Both the Sarkaria Commission and the Punchhi Commission recommended consulting the Chief Minister of the State before appointing a Governor. While this may not eliminate all conflicts, it could reduce friction and reinforce cooperative federalism.
What to Note for Prelims?
- Article 176 mandates the Governor’s address; Article 175 is discretionary.
- The address is prepared by the Council of Ministers, not the Governor.
- ‘Motion of Thanks’ is constitutionally required to debate the address.
- Governor acts on aid and advice, except in limited discretionary areas.
What to Note for Mains?
- Analyse the Governor’s role through the lens of federalism and parliamentary democracy.
- Discuss Supreme Court judgments limiting gubernatorial discretion.
- Examine politicisation of constitutional offices and its impact on Centre–State relations.
- Suggest reforms based on Sarkaria and Punchhi Commission recommendations.
