What do Articles 175 and 176 of the Constitution mandate? How are Governors acting against established constitutional practices when it comes to the yearly address to State legislatures, especially in Opposition-ruled States? What were the recommendations of the Sarkaria and Punchhi Commission?
There have been a series of issues in Opposition-ruled States with respect to the address by the Governor to the State legislature at the commencement of the first session of the year. This has raised constitutional and political questions about the Governor’s role in State legislature.
What is the history?
Section 63 of the Government of India Act, 1935 (GOI Act) provided that the Governor may in his discretion address the provincial legislature. From April 1937, when provincial autonomy started under the GOI act, the Governor’s speech was prepared in consultation with the council of ministers in provinces that laid down the legislative agenda.
Similarly, in the Constituent Assembly, while adopting the Article dealing with Governors’ address to State legislature, it was understood that it would reflect the policy of the elected council of ministers and not the Governor’s personal views.
What are Constitutional provisions?
Article 175 of the Constitution specifies that the Governor may address the house(s) of the State legislature. This is not a mandatory address and may be rarely used by a ruling government. Article 176, on the other hand, provides that the Governor shall address the house(s) of the State legislature at the commencement of the first session after each general election to the Legislative Assembly and at the commencement of the first session of each year. This is a mandatory address to be prepared by the council of ministers, and delivered by the Governor, outlining the government’s achievements in the previous year and its roadmap for policies in the ensuing year. This address is also provided whenever a new assembly is constituted to enable a newly sworn-in council of ministers to outline their policies to the elected representatives and through them to the citizens at large. Article 176 further directs that the rules of procedure of the house(s) shall have provisions for allotment of time for discussion of matters referred in such address. This is the ‘Motion of thanks on Governor’s address’ where the ruling and opposition legislators debate on policy matters announced in the address before voting on the same.
The Supreme Court in Shamsher Singh versus State of Punjab (1974) had held that the Governor is only a constitutional head who acts on the advice of the council of ministers. In Nabam Rebia versus Deputy Speaker (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated that the address under Article 175 or 176 is to be performed by the Governor on the aid and advice of the council of ministers.
What are the current issues?
The current issues arise because Governors in Opposition-ruled States act against established constitutional practices. In Tamil Nadu, the Governor had skipped some portions of the address prepared by the council of ministers in 2022 and 2023. Subsequently, since 2024, the Governor has failed to address the assembly as required under Article 176. In Kerala, the Governor skipped a few portions of the policy address prepared by the State’s cabinet. In Karnataka, the Governor did not read out the address prepared by the council of ministers but instead delivered his own two-line address before leaving the joint session of the legislature.
It is pertinent to note that the Governors take the oath of office under Article 159 that requires them to ‘preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law.’ Such actions go against constitutional principles and the law as settled by the highest court of the country. There have been instances of friction between elected governments and nominated governors since the 1960s with respect to the formal yearly address to the State legislature.
However, current instances are more frequent with Governors altogether skipping the address.
What can be the way forward?
Governors act as the nominal head of the State executive just like the President does for the Union executive. Further, the Governor acts as an appointee of the Centre which may be required for maintaining the unity and integrity of the nation in critical times. Nevertheless, federalism is also a basic feature of our Constitution and the Governor’s office should not undermine the powers of popularly elected governments. The underlying issue for conflicts has been the politicisation of the Governor’s post. Many political leaders have called for abolition of the post in the past. But considering our quasi-federal constitutional scheme, such demands for abolition are likely to remain only on paper. The reform that can be implemented is the recommendation of the Sarkaria and Punchhi Commission. As per these recommendations, the Constitution may be amended to provide that the Chief Ministers of States shall be consulted before the appointment of Governors. While this may not be a panacea for all issues between Governors and elected governments, it could be a good starting point to minimise discord on important legislative issues and avoid confrontation on customary practices like the annual address.
Source: The Hindu
