Federal Tensions & Constitutional Mandate

Federal Tensions & Constitutional Mandate

Context

In January 2026, the constitutional role of the Governor became a flashpoint again in opposition-ruled states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala. The controversy centered on Governors either skipping the customary address, walking out of the Assembly, or refusing to read specific portions of the speech prepared by the elected State Government.

In a notable escalation on January 20, 2026, the Tamil Nadu Governor walked out after a dispute over the National Anthem and the content of the prepared speech, marking the fourth consecutive year of such friction in the state.

About the News

• The Incident: Governors have alleged that government-prepared speeches contain "misleading claims" or "factual inaccuracies," leading them to omit paragraphs or decline the address entirely.
• State Response: Governments argue that the Governor’s Address is a statement of Cabinet policy, and any alteration by the Governor is an "unconstitutional faux pas" that undermines the will of the people.
• The Mic Controversy: During the 2026 Tamil Nadu session, Raj Bhavan alleged the Governor’s microphone was switched off, while the Government moved a resolution to record only the Cabinet-approved text.

Constitutional Framework

The Constitution defines the Governor’s role in the legislature through two primary articles:

• Article 176 (Special Address):  Mandates that the Governor "shall" address the Legislative Assembly at the commencement of the first session of each year and after every general election.
  • This is a mandatory constitutional duty, not an optional one.
• Article 175 (Right to Address): Grants the Governor the right to address the House at any other time or send messages regarding pending bills.
• Article 163 (Aid and Advice): Establishes that the Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except where the Constitution expressly provides for discretion. Articles 175 and 176 do not fall under discretionary powers.

Judicial Precedents & Legal Interpretation

The Supreme Court has consistently narrowed the scope of gubernatorial discretion to prevent the office from becoming a "parallel power center."

Significance: Impact on Federalism

• Erosion of Neutrality: The Governor is intended to be a "neutral constitutional sentinel." Constant friction portrays the office as a political agent of the Union.
• Federal Structure: Since the Governor is appointed by the Centre, using the "Address" to block state programs is viewed as a de facto Union veto over state autonomy.
• Constitutional Morality: Skipping the address is seen as a violation of the "rules of the game" that maintain the balance between the Centre and States.

Way Forward

• Codification of Conventions: Experts suggest formalizing the "Westminster convention" into binding guidelines to ensure the Governor reads the Cabinet-cleared text without deviation.
• Inter-State Council: Utilizing the Inter-State Council to resolve gubernatorial disputes before they reach the Assembly floor.
• Judicial Clarification: A definitive ruling may be needed to establish whether a walkout or refusal to address constitutes a "Constitutional Breakdown" under Article 356.

Conclusion

The Governor’s Address is not a personal manifesto but a formal relay of a government's program. Maintaining the sanctity of Article 176 is essential to protect the parliamentary spirit where the "dignified" head of state (Governor) respects the "efficient" part of the government (the Cabinet)