Meaningless formality: on Governors, their actions Politics & News

The actions of Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi and his Kerala counterpart Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar during their customary Legislative Assembly addresses on January 20 came as no surprise to those who have followed the conduct of Governors in non BJP-ruled States. In Chennai, Mr. Ravi declined to read the speech, which, his office said, had “unsubstantiated claims and misleading statements” to justify his walk out. In the past three years, the Governor has either digressed from the prepared speech or refused to read it out before walking out. In Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan corrected the policy address made by the Governor, who, according to Mr. Vijayan, had skipped portions, as cleared by the Cabinet, and made additions. As long-serving Governors, Mr. Ravi and Mr. Arlekar should be aware that it is a time-honoured constitutional convention for a Governor to read out the exact text of the speech or special address which informs the State of the policies of an elected government. There has never been an incident of the British monarch departing from the official speech; and the Indian system is based on the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy. Yet, they have chosen to violate the convention even though they have no option but to function as “mouthpieces”, to quote former President R. Venkataraman, of the State governments. Mr. Ravi’s penchant is to court controversies but Mr. Arlekar did not repeat what he did last year, when he stuck to the script, striking an officially punctilious tone.

Apparently tired of Mr. Ravi’s repeated violations of the convention, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin has favoured a constitutional amendment to do away with the practice of commencing the first Assembly session of the year with the Governor’s address. Articles 87 and 176 of the Constitution require the President and Governors to make special addresses to Parliament and State legislatures, in the new year. About 35 years ago, President Venkataraman had repeatedly recommended to Prime Ministers Rajiv Gandhi and Chandra Shekhar that the practice be deleted through an amendment as he called it a “British anachronism” and a “meaningless formality”. This suggestion should be viewed in line with the thinking of the regime at the Centre, which seems to have taken upon itself the task of repealing “outdated colonial laws”. The language of the two Articles was borrowed from the rules of the House of Commons. Nothing would be lost if the Articles are scrapped, as the President and the Governors still retain their right to address the legislature under Articles 86 and 175. Importantly, Governors should not assume powers and functions that are not envisaged under the Constitution and should set an example of respecting the letter and spirit of the Constitution.