Should the Governor’s address be scrapped?

The Hindu

Context and Central Issue

The article examines a recurring constitutional controversy: Governors refusing, modifying, or selectively reading Cabinet-approved addresses to State Legislatures. Using recent instances from Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and earlier judicial precedents, the piece questions whether the Governor’s address—mandated under Article 176—has outlived its utility or has become a site of constitutional friction in Opposition-ruled States.

Key Arguments Presented

The Governor’s address is constitutionally mandated, not discretionary
Under Article 176, the Governor is required to address the legislature at the commencement of the first session each year and after elections. The address is drafted by the elected State Cabinet; the Governor’s role is limited to formal delivery.

Refusal or selective reading violates constitutional convention
Walking out, omitting portions, or refusing to read Cabinet-approved text is presented as a breach of constitutional morality and convention, even if the textually explicit sanction is limited.

Governor is not an independent political authority
Unlike the President, the Governor is indirectly elected and holds office at the pleasure of the President. Executive authority vests in the Council of Ministers, not in the Governor acting independently.

The address serves a functional, not merely symbolic role
The address sets the legislative agenda, outlines policy priorities, and enables accountability of the executive to the legislature. It is an integral part of parliamentary democracy, not a colonial relic.

Frequent gubernatorial deviations risk constitutional crises
Failure to deliver the address raises questions about whether the legislature can formally commence business, thereby risking avoidable constitutional deadlock.

Author’s Stance

The authorial voice—emerging through the discussion led by constitutional experts—clearly opposes scrapping the Governor’s address. The stance is that the problem lies not in the institution, but in its politicised misuse. The address should be retained, with strict adherence to constitutional limits on gubernatorial discretion.

Biases and Perspective

Institutionalist bias
The article strongly favours constitutional conventions and continuity over radical institutional redesign.

Executive-legislative primacy bias
There is a clear tilt towards reinforcing the authority of elected governments over unelected constitutional heads.

Scepticism of gubernatorial activism
Governors’ actions are implicitly framed as politically motivated, especially in Opposition-ruled States, with limited consideration of rare cases of genuine constitutional concern.

Pros and Cons of Retaining the Governor’s Address

Pros

• Upholds constitutional continuity and parliamentary tradition
• Reinforces executive accountability to the legislature
• Provides a formal policy roadmap at the start of sessions
• Prevents arbitrary individual discretion by constitutional heads

Cons

• Increasing politicisation of the office of Governor
• Potential for legislative disruption if conventions are violated
• Symbolic repetition in sessions beyond the first of the year
• Limited enforcement mechanisms for constitutional conventions

Policy and Constitutional Implications

Federal relations
Frequent confrontations deepen Centre–State tensions and undermine cooperative federalism.

Constitutional governance
Erosion of conventions weakens the spirit of the Constitution, even where textual violations are ambiguous.

Role of the President
The article raises the question—without strongly endorsing it—of whether Article 160-related presidential intervention should be invoked more assertively in extreme cases.

Reform discourse
Rather than scrapping the address, the focus should be on clarifying conventions, accountability mechanisms, and gubernatorial conduct norms.

Real-World Impact

• State legislatures face procedural uncertainty and delays
• Elected governments see their mandate symbolically challenged
• Governors’ offices risk losing constitutional legitimacy
• Citizens witness institutional conflict replacing governance priorities

UPSC GS Paper Alignment

GS Paper II (Polity & Governance)

• Role of Governor
• Centre–State relations
• Constitutional morality and conventions
• Accountability of constitutional authorities

GS Paper IV (Ethics)

• Constitutional ethics vs political partisanship
• Moral authority of unelected offices

Essay Paper

• “Institutions matter more than individuals”
• “Constitutional conventions as the invisible glue of democracy”

Balanced Conclusion and Future Perspective

The article persuasively argues that scrapping the Governor’s address would be a misplaced response to a deeper constitutional problem. The address itself remains a functional and meaningful component of parliamentary democracy. The real challenge lies in the politicisation of the Governor’s office and the weakening of constitutional restraint.

The future reform agenda should focus on redefining gubernatorial accountability, reinforcing conventions, and depoliticising appointments, rather than dismantling established constitutional practices. Preserving institutions, not abandoning them, is essential to maintaining India’s federal and democratic balance.