Do states need governors? Row in session rekindles debate

Bengaluru: The confrontation between the Congress government in Karnataka and Governor Thaawar Chand Gehlot during the joint address to the legislature this past week, and similar confrontations in Tamil Nadu and Kerala, have revived the debate over the utility and relevance of the Lok Bhavan (previously Raj Bhavan) amid rising concerns over constitutional ambiguity, political misuse and erosion of institutional dignity.

The row erupted after Gehlot refused to read portions of the address prepared by the Cabinet, objecting to paragraphs critical of the union government, especially VB-G RAM (G) Act. 

Veteran Kannada activist and former lawmaker Vatal Nagaraj feels the confrontations point to a deeper problem.

“The governor’s post itself can be abolished. Raj Bhavan, with its sprawling residence, huge staff and high cost of maintenance, has become a white elephant. Also, we’re witnessing frequent clashes between the governor’s office and elected governments. Renaming the governor’s office as Lok Bhavan does not bring it closer to the people,” said Vatal, who recalled his own demand to then governor Khurshed Alam Khan to deliver his address to a joint session in Kannada, which forced him to walk out without making the speech.

Questioning the democratic legitimacy of an unelected authority scrutinising an elected government, Vatal said, “Let governor be elected like the President, and let there be a provision to recall the governor too”.

In contrast, Suresh Kumar, former law and parliamentary affairs minister and senior BJP leader, rejected calls to abolish the post, warning that doing so would weaken constitutional safeguards.

“I’m not in favour of abolishing the governor’s office as there’ll be no checks and balances,” Kumar said.

“Today, political parties are sending not members, but only numbers to the legislature. Sometimes, bills being framed may not be in the best interest of society”.

Kumar said the governor’s role becomes critical when the executive itself is under scrutiny.

“If there are allegations against a chief minister, the state government will never grant sanction to prosecute. That is where the role of the governor becomes crucial,” he said. Recalling the views of late Justice Rama Jois, former governor of Bihar and Jharkhand, Kumar said Jois had called the joint address a “colonial hangover” and argued that the joint address needed to be scrapped as governors were being forced to read politically loaded speeches drafted by the Cabinet and were then attacked during debates on the motion of thanks, despite having no role in framing the content.

On the joint address, Suresh Kumar questioned the attempt to compel the governor to take a political stand.

“Governor can’t criticise the Centre and its policies. He’s appointed by the President of India. The state government wanted to put words in the governor’s mouth, attacking a central law debated and passed by parliament and assented to by the President. That would amount to subversion of the Constitution and democracy,” he said.

Suresh Kumar raised the question of dissent. “If dissent notes are allowed in Cabinets and conscience votes are permitted in a democracy, why deny the governor the freedom to dissent?” he said. 

Seeking to take a middle ground is Justice Santosh Hegde, former judge of the Supreme Court and former Lokayukta of Karnataka, who said the crisis stemmed from undefined constitutional boundaries rather than individual conduct.

“There is a lacuna in the Constitution,” Justice Hegde said. “It doesn’t define whether the governor is bound to read out the entire speech or whether he can omit portions that are defamatory, false or unconstitutional”.

Justice Hegde pointed out that Article 176 mandates that the governor “shall” address the legislature, but does not clarify the manner or content.

“The Constitution is silent on whether the governor can refuse, omit or alter portions of the speech”.

He said repeated confrontations across states make judicial or legislative intervention inevitable.

“The Supreme Court can clarify whether the governor is legally bound to read the speech in full or whether discretionary powers apply,” Justice Hegde said.

“The court can also refer the matter back to parliament for an amendment”.

The debate has gained national momentum after Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin announced that the DMK would seek an amendment to abolish the practice of the governor’s joint address, following repeated confrontations with Governor R N Ravi.

The DMK has alleged a pattern of governors undermining elected governments and has spoken of consulting Kerala and Karnataka to build a broader consensus.

The Congress has accused governors in several non-BJP-ruled states of acting like “agents” of the Centre, citing delays in approving bills, public remarks critical of state governments and repeated walkouts during joint addresses.

Credit: Special arrangementJustice Santosh Hegde

Lok Bhavan in Bengaluru.

Quote - "There is a lacuna in the Constitution. It doesn’t define whether the governor is bound to read out the entire speech or whether he can omit portions that are defamatory false or unconstitutional."

- Santosh Hegde, former judge of the Supreme Court & former Lokayukta
of Karnataka