Decode Politics: Amid Governors vs Opposition flare-up over House address, what do Constitution, courts say

The development came two days after Gehlot’s southern counterparts in two other Opposition-ruled states made similar moves in the House on the opening day of the first session. In the DMK-ruled Tamil Nadu,

Governor R N Ravi walked out of the Assembly without delivering his inaugural address, while in the LDF-ruled Kerala Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar omitted parts of the speech cleared by the Pinarayi Vijayan Cabinet.

What is the function of Governor’s address?

The Governor’s address formally opens the first session of the Legislature each year. Drafted by the elected government and approved by the Cabinet, the speech explains why the House has been summoned and sets out the government’s plans for the year, including the proposed legislation and financial requirements.

The address forms the basis of the motion of thanks that the House takes up subsequently, which allows legislators to debate, question, and criticise the government’s policies and proposals. The onus for replying to questions over the Governor’s speech is on the government.

These provisions operate within the broader framework of Article 163(1), which lays down the governing principle of the office of the Governor that “there shall be a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions,” except where the Constitution expressly grants discretion.

The Governor’s address is not part of such a discretion. Without completion of this formality, the Legislature cannot be said to have legally met in the opening session.

What are constitutional provisions?

Under Article 87 of the Constitution, the President addresses Parliament at the commencement of the first session after a general election and at the start of each year, informing members of the causes for summoning it. The Governor’s address under Article 176 mirrors this design at the state level.

Article 176(1) states that the Governor shall address the House at the commencement of  “the first session after each general election to the Legislative Assembly” and at the beginning of every year. Article 176(2) mandates the House to allocate time to discuss the address.

What have the courts ruled?

While the courts have underlined the mandatory character of the Governor’s address, they have also recognised that Legislatures are not always orderly spaces. Various judicial decisions have also made a distinction between the absence of a Governor’s address and interruptions in its delivery.

In 1952, the Orissa High Court dealt with an early challenge to Article 176, where the petitioner argued that the Governor’s address had not been delivered “at the commencement of the session” because members were sworn in before it. The court held that the Legislature does not “legally assemble” for the purpose of business until the Governor declares the “causes of its summons”, making his address a mandatory constitutional starting point.

In 1965, a plea urged the Calcutta High Court to decide whether the proceedings of the West Bengal Assembly were invalid after the Governor was forced to abandon the address amidst disturbances. The Speaker later placed the approved text of the speech on the table. Upholding the session, the court held that the constitutional duty had been met in substance, noting that “the consequence of non-delivery of the whole of the address, by word of the mouth, was not such as rendered the subsequent proceedings inside the Legislative Chamber illegal but merely resulted in procedural irregularity.”

A similar ruling was given by the Rajasthan High Court in Yogendra Nath v. State (1967) case, where disorder prevented the Governor from reading out the full speech. The House resolved that the address be “taken to have been read”, which the court upheld stating that “what was of the essence of the matter in the address was the Governor coming into direct and immediate communication with the representatives of the people”.

How Governor’s address came about?

The address by the President and Governors, under Articles 87 and 176 respectively, comes from the British parliamentary practice. In the UK, a Parliament session does not formally begin until the sovereign declares the reasons for summoning the Houses. Until then, no public business can be taken up. India adopted this provision at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. When it came into force in 1950, the President and Governors were required to address the House at the start of every session. In practice, this created confusion.

Legislatures met several times a year, often sitting for long stretches. Under the original requirement of such an address at the start of “every session”, this created uncertainty over whether a House resuming after each such adjournment had been “summoned” again and therefore required a fresh address.

This was amended through the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, which limited the requirement of an address to the first session of each year and the first session after a general election. B R Ambedkar explained that the change was meant to remove uncertainty.

The practice itself has not gone unquestioned. R Venkataraman had described the address as a “British anachronism”, arguing that they reduce the Head of State to a “mouthpiece” of the elected government. Even so, he was clear that as long as the practice exists, the address must be delivered as prepared, since it is constitutionally the government’s address, not the Governor’s speech.

Why Governor, govt conflicts are rising?

Governors are not expected to be passive recipients of a draft address. They may raise objections, suggest changes or seek clarifications before the sessions begin. Such consultations between the Lok Bhavan and the elected government are part of established constitutional practice and are typically resolved privately.

However, once a Governor declines to read the speech, or omits portions of it unilaterally or walks out of the House, the disagreement becomes an open confrontation between the unelected constitutional authority and an elected executive.

The Karnataka episode fits into a broader pattern across several Opposition-ruled states. Governors are appointed by the Centre, which is currently ruled by the BJP-led NDA.

In Tamil Nadu, Governor Ravi has, for four consecutive years, walked out of the Assembly without delivering his customary inaugural address.

On Tuesday, he exited the House moments after the State Anthem “Tamil Thaai Vaazhthu” was played before the National Anthem or any part of his official speech could be read out. Minutes later, Chief Minister M K Stalin moved a resolution to condemn the Governor’s action and to treat his prepared address as read — a move endorsed by Speaker M Appavu, who then read out its Tamil version.

The Lok Bhavan alleged that Governor Ravi’s microphone was “repeatedly switched off” and that he was “not allowed to speak”. It also claimed that the address prepared by the DMK government was “laced with unsubstantiated claims and misleading statements”, making it untenable for the Governor to deliver it.

Kerala saw a similar standoff Tuesday, with Governor Arlekar skipping parts of the address that were critical of the Centre. The omitted portions were later read by CM Vijayan.

In Karnataka, Gehlot had expressed reservations about several paragraphs in the speech critical of the Union government. These included the line that Karnataka was “facing a suppressive situation in economic and policy matters” and that the state government condemned the repeal of the MGNREGA to bring the G RAM G Act by the Centre.