Context and Significance
- Recent controversies in Opposition-ruled States over Governors skipping, delaying, or modifying the annual address have revived debates on constitutional propriety, federalism, and neutrality of the Governor’s office.
- The issue goes beyond ceremony, touching the balance between elected governments and constitutional heads within India’s federal structure.
Relevance
- GS Paper 2 (Indian Polity):
Constitutional provisions (Articles 175, 176), Governor’s role, federalism, constitutional morality. - GS Paper 2 (Governance):
Centre–State relations, institutional neutrality, conventions vs discretion, Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions.
Constitutional Framework
Article 175: Governor’s Address
- Article 175(1) empowers the Governor to address either House or both Houses of the State Legislature and send messages on legislative matters.
- The address is not discretionary in substance; it reflects the policies and programmes of the elected Council of Ministers.
Article 176: Mandatory Annual Address
- Article 176(1) mandates the Governor to address the State Legislature at the commencement of the first session each year and after Assembly elections.
- The address is a constitutional obligation, not a political speech, forming part of legislative procedure.
Established Constitutional Practice
Role of the Governor in the Address
- Since 1937 (provincial autonomy), Governors deliver speeches prepared by the Council of Ministers, outlining the government’s agenda.
- The Governor acts as a constitutional head, speaking on the aid and advice of the elected executive.
Supreme Court Clarifications
- In Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974), the Supreme Court held that the Governor functions on aid and advice, except in narrowly defined discretionary areas.
- The Court reaffirmed that Articles 175 and 176 do not grant policy discretion to Governors.
Nature of the Current Controversy
Deviations from Convention
- Governors in some States have skipped addresses, omitted portions, or delayed delivery, disrupting legislative functioning.
- Such actions depart from long-standing conventions and challenge the neutrality of the Governor’s office.
Federal and Political Dimensions
- Most disputes arise in Opposition-ruled States, intensifying perceptions of partisan conduct by centrally appointed Governors.
- The controversy reflects deeper tensions in Centre–State relations and competitive federalism.
Governance and Legislative Implications
Impact on Legislative Accountability
- The Governor’s address allows legislatures to debate and scrutinise government policies through a Motion of Thanks.
- Skipping or altering the address undermines legislative oversight and democratic accountability.
Institutional Friction
- Frequent confrontations weaken institutional trust and normalise constitutional brinkmanship.
- This risks converting a ceremonial constitutional role into a site of political contestation.
Sarkaria and Punchhi Commission Recommendations
Sarkaria Commission (1988)
- Emphasised that Governors should act as impartial constitutional heads, not agents of the Centre.
- Recommended restraint in discretionary powers and adherence to constitutional conventions.
Punchhi Commission (2010)
- Called for clear guidelines on Governor’s conduct and suggested a more consultative appointment process.
- Highlighted misuse of gubernatorial office as a threat to federal balance.
Underlying Structural Issues
- Ambiguity in the appointment and accountability of Governors creates incentives for politicisation.
- Absence of enforceable conventions allows selective interpretation of constitutional roles.
Way Forward
- Codify constitutional conventions governing the Governor’s address through parliamentary or judicial clarification.
- Reform the appointment process to ensure neutrality, including consultation with States.
- Reinforce Supreme Court precedents to limit discretionary misuse.
- Strengthen federal norms by recognising the primacy of elected governments in policy articulation.
