Context:

Recent developments in Tamil Nadu and Kerala have sparked intense political debates over the role of the Governor in state legislatures. In Tamil Nadu, Governor R.N. Ravi refused to read the customary opening address in the Legislative Assembly and walked out instead. In Kerala, Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar altered portions of the government-prepared policy speech, prompting the Chief Minister to read the omitted sections in the House. These events have brought to the fore tensions between constitutional provisions, established conventions, and political practice.

Events in Tamil Nadu and Kerala:

• • • • In Tamil Nadu, the Governor cited alleged inaccuracies in the DMK government’s speech and certain procedural issues as reasons for his refusal to deliver the address. Chief Minister M.K. Stalin condemned the act, asserting that the Governor is constitutionally obligated to deliver the Cabinet-approved speech under Article 176 of the Constitution. He further emphasized that the Legislative Assembly had unanimously adopted a resolution treating the address as officially read.
      • In Kerala, portions of the policy speech referring to fiscal autonomy and pending central legislation were modified or omitted by the Governor. Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan criticised the alteration as a violation of established procedural norms and reaffirmed that the Cabinet-approved text alone constitutes the official policy declaration of the government. The Speaker of the Assembly supported this position, underscoring the need to adhere to long-standing constitutional conventions.

Constitutional Provisions:

• • • • The Governor’s role in legislative addresses is primarily governed by Article 176 of the Constitution, which mandates a special address at the commencement of each legislative year and after general elections.
      • The Constitution envisages the Governor as a nominal head who functions on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers under Article 163. While Article 175 empowers the Governor to send messages to the House, unilateral deviations from the Cabinet-approved address are generally regarded as constitutionally improper in practice. Courts have tended to view such actions as procedural irregularities rather than substantive illegality.

Constitutional Conventions and Political Practice:

• • • • By convention, the Governor is expected to read the address prepared by the elected government without alteration, as it reflects the government’s policy priorities and legislative agenda.
      • The subsequent debate on the Motion of Thanks enables legislative scrutiny and ensures executive accountability, reinforcing the parliamentary principle of responsible government.
      • \Any refusal to read the address or alteration of its contents disrupts this institutional balance and raises broader concerns regarding federal norms and Centre–State relations.

Conclusion:

These incidents underscore the fragile interface between constitutional text, conventions, and political practice in India’s federal system. They highlight the need for greater clarity regarding the scope of the Governor’s discretionary powers and reaffirm the primacy of elected state governments in articulating public policy. The controversies in Tamil Nadu and Kerala are likely to influence future debates on federalism, the role of Governors, and the constitutional propriety of legislative addresses in India.