The events surrounding the Governor’s customary address to State Legislatures on January 20 have once again brought into focus a recurring constitutional friction between Raj Bhavans and elected governments in non-BJP-ruled States. What unfolded in Tamil Nadu and Kerala highlights not merely individual conduct but a deeper debate over constitutional conventions, federal balance, and the relevance of inherited parliamentary practices.
What happened in Tamil Nadu and Kerala
In Chennai, R. N. Ravi, Governor of Tamil Nadu, declined to read out the policy address prepared and approved by the State Cabinet, walking out of the Assembly on the ground that the speech contained “unsubstantiated claims and misleading statements.” This was not an isolated act. Over the past three years, the Governor has either deviated from the prepared text or refused to read it altogether.
In Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan publicly corrected the address delivered by Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar, alleging that the Governor skipped portions approved by the Cabinet and added material of his own.
The constitutional convention behind the Governor’s address
Under Articles 176 and 87 of the Constitution, Governors and the President are required to address State Legislatures and Parliament respectively at the beginning of the first session of the year. While the Constitution mandates the address, it is silent on its authorship. Constitutional convention, however, is unequivocal: the speech reflects the policies of the elected government and is drafted by the Cabinet.
In the Westminster system on which India’s parliamentary democracy is based, the Head of State reads the speech verbatim. There has never been an instance of the British monarch altering or refusing to deliver the official address. In India too, the Governor is expected to act as a formal conduit — not a political evaluator — of the government’s agenda.
Why deviation from the text is problematic
By refusing to read or by modifying the address, Governors effectively challenge the authority of the elected government on the floor of the legislature. Such actions blur the line between constitutional head and political actor. As former President R. Venkataraman once observed, Governors function as “mouthpieces” of State governments during these addresses.
Any departure from this role undermines collective Cabinet responsibility and disrupts legislative decorum. It also creates the perception that Governors are acting at the behest of the Centre, reinforcing concerns about partisan use of gubernatorial office.
Federalism and the Governor’s role
India’s Constitution envisages Governors as neutral constitutional authorities, not parallel power centres. Their discretionary powers are limited and must be exercised within clearly defined constitutional boundaries. When Governors assume the authority to vet, censor, or editorialise government policy statements, they step beyond what the Constitution envisages.
Such conduct aggravates Centre–State tensions and weakens cooperative federalism, especially when it appears selectively targeted at States ruled by Opposition parties.
The call to revisit Articles 87 and 176
Frustrated by repeated violations of convention, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. K. Stalin has suggested amending the Constitution to dispense with the practice of beginning the year’s first Assembly session with the Governor’s address.
This idea is not new. Over three decades ago, President R. Venkataraman advised Prime Ministers Rajiv Gandhi and Chandra Shekhar to remove the provision, calling it a “British anachronism” and a “meaningless formality.” The language of Articles 87 and 176, after all, was borrowed directly from the rules of the British House of Commons.
Would scrapping the provisions weaken democracy?
Eliminating Articles 87 and 176 would not silence the President or Governors. Articles 86 and 175 already empower them to address legislatures whenever they deem fit. Removing the mandatory annual address would merely end a ritual that has increasingly become a site of political confrontation.
In fact, doing away with this requirement may reduce constitutional friction while preserving the dignity of both the legislature and the office of the Governor.
A larger constitutional message
At its core, the controversy is not about a speech but about constitutional discipline. Governors are expected to uphold the letter and spirit of the Constitution, not reinterpret their role in ways that disturb democratic accountability. Respect for conventions is as vital to constitutional governance as adherence to written provisions.
What to note for Prelims?
- Article 176: Governor’s address to State Legislature.
- Article 87: President’s address to Parliament.
- Governor’s address reflects Cabinet-approved government policy.
- Articles 86 and 175 allow discretionary addresses.
What to note for Mains?
- Role of constitutional conventions in parliamentary democracy.
- Limits of the Governor’s discretionary powers.
- Impact of gubernatorial activism on federalism.
- Debate on relevance of colonial-era constitutional practices.