Meaningless formality: on Governors, their actions

Context & The Gist

The recent actions of Governors in Tamil Nadu and Kerala – declining to read or altering prepared speeches in State Assemblies – have brought the role of Governors under scrutiny. This is not an isolated incident, reflecting a broader trend of friction between Governors and State governments, particularly those not ruled by the BJP. The editorial argues that these actions violate established constitutional conventions and suggests revisiting the practice of the Governor’s address, potentially through a constitutional amendment.

The core issue revolves around the constitutional role of the Governor as a representative of the Union, and their obligation to act as a ‘mouthpiece’ of the State government, particularly during the ceremonial address to the legislature.

Key Arguments & Nuances

• Violation of Convention: Governors are expected to read the speech prepared by the elected government, reflecting its policies. Deviating from this convention undermines the democratic process.
• Historical Roots: The practice of the Governor’s address is rooted in the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy, where the monarch (or their representative) delivers a speech drafted by the government.
• Constitutional Provisions: Articles 87 and 176 mandate the President and Governors to address Parliament and State legislatures, but the editorial questions the necessity of this formality.
• Calls for Amendment: Chief Minister Stalin’s proposal to amend the Constitution to eliminate the Governor’s address echoes similar suggestions made by former President R. Venkataraman decades ago.
• Centre’s Perspective: The Centre appears to be inclined towards repealing “outdated colonial laws,” aligning with the suggestion to scrap Articles 87 and 176.

UPSC Syllabus Relevance

• Polity: Governor’s role, Centre-State relations, Constitutional provisions related to the legislature.
• Governance: Constitutional conventions, issues of federalism, and administrative ethics.
• Current Affairs: Recent debates surrounding the role of Governors and Centre-State conflicts.

Prelims Data Bank

• Article 87: Special address by the President to Parliament.
• Article 176: Special address by the Governor to the State Legislature.
• Article 86: President’s address to Parliament (also allows for addressing at other times).
• Article 175: Governor’s address to the State Legislature (also allows for addressing at other times).
• Westminster Model: A parliamentary system of government based on the British model.
• R. Venkataraman: Former President of India who advocated for removing the Governor’s address.

Mains Critical Analysis

The editorial highlights a critical tension within India’s constitutional framework – the role of the Governor as both a representative of the Union and an officer of the State government. This duality often leads to conflicts, particularly when the Governor is appointed by a central government different from the one ruling the State.

Political & Administrative Issues

The recent incidents demonstrate a concerning trend of Governors overstepping their constitutional bounds and acting as agents of the central government rather than upholding the democratic principles of the State. This erodes the trust in the institution of the Governor and exacerbates Centre-State tensions.

Challenges & Opportunities

• Challenge: Maintaining the balance between the Union and the States is crucial for federalism. A politicized Governor’s office can disrupt this balance.
• Challenge: The lack of clear guidelines on the Governor’s conduct allows for arbitrary actions and creates uncertainty.
• Opportunity: Re-evaluating the necessity of the Governor’s address could streamline legislative proceedings and reduce potential friction.
• Opportunity: Strengthening the constitutional framework to define the Governor’s role more precisely could prevent future conflicts.

Critical Gap

The Supreme Court’s recent rulings (as highlighted in the context articles) have further complicated the situation. While the Court initially attempted to provide timelines for gubernatorial action on State Bills, it subsequently retreated, effectively granting Governors greater discretion. This lack of judicial clarity leaves States vulnerable to delays and arbitrary decisions.

Value Addition

• S.R. Bommai Case (1994): This landmark SC judgment laid down principles regarding the imposition of President’s Rule in States, emphasizing the need for objective reasons and preventing its misuse. While not directly related to the Governor’s address, it underscores the importance of upholding constitutional principles in Centre-State relations.
• Punchhi Commission (2010): This Commission on Centre-State Relations recommended guidelines for Governor’s conduct, emphasizing neutrality and adherence to constitutional conventions.
• Quote: “The Governor is not a representative of the Central Government. He is the representative of the President.” – S.R. Bommai Case

Context & Linkages

This article details the Supreme Court’s November 2025 judgment which significantly weakened the ability of States to challenge delays by Governors in assenting to Bills. The Court’s rejection of “deemed consent” and its affirmation of the Governor’s power to reserve Bills for the President reinforces the Centre’s control over State legislation, creating a context where Governors may be more inclined to act in accordance with the central government’s wishes, as seen in the recent incidents with the Governor’s address.

This article highlights the Supreme Court’s backtracking on its earlier attempt to impose timelines on presidential and gubernatorial assent to bills. This demonstrates a reluctance by the judiciary to intervene in the delicate balance of power between the Centre and States, leaving Governors with considerable discretion. This lack of judicial oversight further exacerbates the concerns raised in the current editorial regarding the potential for Governors to act arbitrarily.

The Way Forward

• Constitutional Amendment: Consider amending Articles 87 and 176 to either eliminate the Governor’s address or redefine its purpose and format.
• Inter-State Council: Strengthen the Inter-State Council to provide a platform for resolving Centre-State disputes and fostering greater cooperation.
• Governor’s Appointment: Establish a more transparent and consultative process for appointing Governors, involving both the Centre and the State governments.
• Code of Conduct: Develop a comprehensive code of conduct for Governors, outlining their responsibilities and limitations, based on the recommendations of the Punchhi Commission.