Governor’s Digressions

Within a space of five days governors of three prominent southern states have digressed from the conventional practice of reading out the address at the start of the Budget session of the legislative assemblies. While Tamil Nadu governor RN Ravi refused to read out the address and walked out, Karnataka governor Thaawarchand Gehlot read out the first and the last para of the address and walked out wrapping up the address in 60 seconds. Kerala governor Rajendra Arlekar dropped parts and added his own version in the address prepared by the state cabinet.

In all three cases, the governors, appointed as the Centre’s representatives in the states, have digressed from the time-honoured conventions and the Constitutional obligation to place before the Houses the respective governments’ agenda for the year and the record of the performance so far. This is no good augury for the centre-state relations and the observance of the spirit of federalism that binds the states with Centre and harmonise the diverse strands of national and regional aspirations.

In the past, certain governors have been insistent upon appointing vice chancellors of their choice in the universities set up by the state governments leading to charge of interference in day-to-day functioning of the institutions of the state. There have been umpteen number of cases where the Tamil Nadu Governors’ office has sat over bills passed by the state assemblies thereby proving more hindrance than help in guiding the development of the state. In one such case, the Tamil Nadu government had to approach the Supreme Court to seek its view over Governor’s role in the matter.

It is quite well known that the assemblies elected by the popular vote are mandated to carry forward the administration of the state while fulfilling the aspirations of the people and any deviance from the established practice constitutes a violation of the Constitution. While the Governors are appointed by the centre as “constitutional head’ and its representatives, the Article 163 of the Constitution requires the Governor to act on the “aid and advice” of the Council of Ministers.

Moreover, speech at the inaugural session is not a personal statement of the Governor but a policy statement prepared by the cabinet and placed before the members for their approval in the form of vote of thanks. It is a well- recognised convention that the governor is guided by the aid and advice of the cabinet in every function, including the address to the house. It is quite possible that the revised portions would not gel with the majority of the house, will be rejected and the ultimate responsibility for its rejection by the house will fall upon the government.

That all such digressions have been reported from the states ruled by the parties in opposition etches to broad relief a pattern of undermining the mandate and authority of the State governments and ignoring the conventions that have so far sustained and nurtured the federalism.