Issues Surrounding the Governor’s Address to State Legislatures

Recent disputes in Opposition-ruled States over the Governor’s annual address have raised constitutional and federal concerns, questioning whether Governors are acting within their role as constitutional heads or exceeding established conventions.

Historical Background

• GOI Act, 1935 (Section 63): The Governor could address the provincial legislature using personal discretion.
• After provincial autonomy (1937): The address began to be prepared with the Council of Ministers, reflecting the elected government’s agenda.
• Constituent Assembly view: The address was intended to convey government policy, not the Governor’s personal views.
• Outcome: This convention was carried forward into the Constitution of India.

Constitutional Provisions

• Article 175: Empowers the Governor to address either House or both Houses of the State legislature.
  • The address is discretionary and not mandatory.
• Article 176: Makes it mandatory for the Governor to address the legislature:
  • At the first session after a general election, and
  • At the first session of every calendar year.
  • The address is:
    • Prepared by the Council of Ministers,
    • Delivered by the Governor,
    • Intended to outline the government’s achievements and policy roadmap.
  • Provides for a ‘Motion of Thanks’, enabling legislative debate and voting on the address.

Judicial Interpretation

• Shamsher Singh vs State of Punjab (1974): The Governor is a constitutional head and must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
• Nabam Rebia vs Deputy Speaker (2016): Functions under Articles 175 and 176 must be performed strictly on ministerial advice, not personal discretion.

Current Issues and Deviations

• Departure from convention in Opposition-ruled States:
  • Tamil Nadu: Portions of the address were skipped in 2022–23, and from 2024 onwards, the Governor did not deliver the address at all.
  • Kerala: The Governor omitted certain portions of the Cabinet-approved policy address.
  • Karnataka: Governor refused to read the prepared address and delivered a brief personal statement.
• Constitutional conflict: Such actions violate:
  • Article 159 oath to preserve and defend the Constitution.
  • Judicial rulings affirming the Governor’s non-discretionary role.
• Escalation: Though Centre-State friction exists since the 1960s, recent instances show greater frequency and severity.

Federalism and the Governor’s Role

• Constitutional Position: Governors act as nominal heads of the State executive, similar to the President at the Union level, functioning largely on ministerial advice.
• Centre–State Balance: While Governors are appointed by the Centre to safeguard national unity, federalism remains a basic feature of the Constitution.
• Politicisation concern: Increasing political use of the Governor’s office has weakened trust between States and the Centre.
• Abolition Debate: Periodic demands to abolish the post arise from such conflicts, but these remain impractical given India’s quasi-federal constitutional structure.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books

Visit PW Store

Way Forward

• The most viable reform lies in implementing recommendations of the Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions:
  • Mandatory consultation with the Chief Minister before appointing a Governor.
• Though not a complete solution, this reform could:
• • Reduce political friction,
  • Strengthen cooperative federalism,
  • Preserve constitutional conventions such as the annual address.

Conclusion

The controversy over Governors’ addresses reveals the gap between constitutional morality and political practice. Upholding Articles 175 and 176 is essential for federal balance and democracy, with institutional reform key to restoring Governor’s neutrality.

DOWNLOAD PDF