Syllabus: Issues and challenges pertaining to the federal structure
Context: Governors of Tamil Nadu and Kerala deviated from Cabinet-approved Assembly addresses, triggering constitutional disputes over gubernatorial neutrality, federal principles, and executive supremacy in legislative proceedings.
Constitutional Provisions and Conventions
- Article 176(1) mandates the Governor to address the Assembly at the year’s first session.
- The address explains the “causes of summons” and outlines the government’s legislative priorities.
- The speech content is drafted by the State Cabinet, not independently by the Governor.
- Constitutional convention requires the Governor to read the address without substantive deviations.
Key Areas of Conflict
- Governors have skipped or modified portions of Cabinet-prepared addresses.
- Instances include delays in summoning sessions or threats to avoid delivering the speech.
- Critics allege political bias, citing the Governor’s appointment by the Union government.
- These actions raise concerns about erosion of cooperative federalism and constitutional propriety.
Judicial Interpretations and Precedents
- Andul Gafoor Habibullah (1966) held the Governor’s address as a mandatory constitutional duty.
- Courts clarified that “as soon as possible” does not justify arbitrary or prolonged delays.
- Nabam Rebia (2016) reaffirmed the Governor’s obligation to follow Council of Ministers’ advice.
- B.P. Singhal (2010) limited discretionary powers, emphasising constitutional neutrality.
- Some legal opinions permit omission of defamatory content, though this remains contested.
Federal and Governance Implications
- Frequent confrontations weaken institutional trust between Lok Bhavan and elected governments.
- Legislative functioning suffers due to delayed sessions and procedural uncertainty.
- The controversy highlights tensions between unitary features and federal autonomy.
- Public perception of politicisation of constitutional offices undermines democratic legitimacy.
Reform Proposals and Way Forward
- Sarkaria Commission (1988) recommended appointing non-political, eminent individuals as Governors.
- Punchhi Commission (2010) advised Governors should not act as agents of the Centre.
- Removal of Governors should involve consultation with State governments.
- Courts urged time-bound compliance with ministerial advice in recent 2025 rulings.
ConclusionStrengthening conventions and judicial clarity can restore balance between constitutional authority and federal accountability.