Siddaramiah’s advisor says Govt was ready for legal battle if Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot didn’t deliver his address

Gehlot agreed to read out the lines after prolonged deliberations with the state government, during which he is also learnt to have sought advice from the solicitor-general of India.

The Government has argued that refusing to read out the speech amounted to a violation of constitutional principles. “Articles 176 and 173 are clear. He/she (Governor) shall read the speech,” the chief minister said soon after the governor walked out after reading out the two lines.

Paragraphs Gehlot is said to have opposed

Of the 123 paragraphs of the speech, the governor is said to have opposed 11 paragraphs. Of them, 10 followed soon after the first paragraph. The second paragraph of the speech read, “Within the federal framework, the State is facing a suppressive situation in economic and policy matters. It has suffered injustice in tax devolution. centrally sponsored schemes, central sector schemes, and special schemes. The Union must seriously consider that economically suppressing Karnataka, which occupies a driving position in the national economy, will adversely affect the entire country. During the period of the Government Commission, resources to the tune of approximately ₹1.25 lakh crore were denied to the State, and the grave injustice has been brought to the notice of the 16th Finance Commission. The Government is firmly confident that this injustice will be rectified in the coming days.”

This was followed by paragraphs critical of the replacement of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) with the recently passed VB-G RAM G.

“While repealing an employment guarantee law and introducing a new law, the opinions of States ought to have been sought. Centrally sponsored schemes involve State participation. Implementing such a law without consulting States amounts to unconstitutional conduct.

“Worker-centric rights under MGNREGA have been diluted and labourers are being placed under contractors’ control. Opportunities to revise wages based on inflation and price rise have diminished. Consequently, the social security of poor wage labourers is being eroded.

“The name of Mahatma Gandhi has been removed. Under the new law, States already facing financial stress due to Union policies must contribute 40% of the funding. If States fail to contribute, the Centre will withhold funds, leading the scheme towards gradual extinction,” paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 read, and the 11th paragraph demanded that MGNREGA be restored in its original form.