Tamil Nadu Governor crosses the line

The Constitution is silent on the way the address is to be delivered, but R N Ravi’s conduct has called into question the relationship between the legislature and Governor

The ugly scenes in the Tamil Nadu Assembly with Governor R N Ravi deleting and adding words in his speech, his walkout, and the pandemonium in the House have once again brought to the fore the uneasy relationship and confrontationist course between the head of state and the executive.

The unprecedented incident of a Governor deleting and, in addition, adding new words in his speech that was approved by the state Cabinet has raised several questions of constitutional propriety and may have long-term consequences. What happened in the Assembly that led to such an uproar against the Governor’s conduct? Governor Ravi, whose relations with the ruling DMK government have virtually broken down, chose to omit in his customary speech expressions such as the “Dravidian model of governance” and the names of Dravidian icons. This made Chief Minister M K Stalin propose a resolution against the Governor’s act. The Governor walked out. Incidentally, Ravi did not wait until the national anthem was sung.

What does the Constitution say about the address? Article 176 of the Constitution deals with the special address by the Governor. It says: “At the commencement of the first session after each general election to the Legislative Assembly and at the commencement of the first session of each year, the Governor shall address the Legislative Assembly or, in the case of a state having a Legislative Council, both Houses assemble together and inform the Legislature of the causes of its summons”.

So, the related provision remains expressly silent on the way the address is to be delivered—whether any deletions or additions can be made by the Governor. However, convention has it that the Governor reads out the speech prepared and approved by the state Cabinet. Perhaps Ravi made use of the silence of the Constitution on the modalities, or lack thereof, involved in reading out the speech.

DH Deciphers | Tamil Nadu vs Tamizhagam: Why the latter’s usage is objected to

Also, the former IPS officer, who took over as TN Governor in September 2021, may have taken a leaf out of another provision of the Constitution, which talks about allowing the Governor to use his discretion in his decision-making. Article 163(2), relating to the “Council of Ministers to aid and advise Governor,” says: “If any question arises whether any matter is or is not a matter as respects (in respect of) which the Governor is by or under this Constitution (is) required to act in his discretion, the decision of the Governor in his discretion shall be final, and the validity of anything done by the Governor shall not be called in (to) question on the ground that he ought or ought not to have acted in his discretion.”

But then, Constitution experts point out the 1966 Supreme Court judgement in Shamsher Singh vs State of Punjab in a case relating to the “personal satisfaction” of the Governor. The seven-judge bench had “unequivocally reiterated” the “settled legal position” that the President/Governor is only the constitutional head, with the real power being vested in the Council of Ministers, on whose aid and advice the President/Governor exercises his powers and functions.

It further ruled: “The satisfaction required by the Constitution is not the personal satisfaction of the President or Governor but the satisfaction of the President or Governor in the constitutional sense in the cabinet system of government, that is, the satisfaction of his Council of Ministers. In Constitutional Law, the ‘functions’ of the President and Governor and the ‘business’ of Government belong to the ministers, not to the Head of State……”

This, relating to the appointment and dismissal of two persons, including a lower court judge, can be seen in the present context also, as here too the Governor should have acted as per the decision of the council of ministers.

Thus, the standoff has called into question the relationship between the Cabinet and the Governor and the legislature and the Governor. The Governor’s unprecedented action could have long-term consequences. This may prompt other Governors who do not have good ties with their governments to do the same: delete words/sentences or add their points of view to the prior-approved speech. What happens if the Chief Minister, who has to defend the address of the Governor on the floor of the House, refuses to do so? Of course, this is unlikely to happen because a defeat for the government would necessitate the resignation of the Chief Minister.

Governors carry out, by addressing the first legislature session of the year, a function that the President, who has appointed them, does in Parliament. What happens if the President does a Ravi? Although so far, such an incident has not happened, experts note that then President Zail Singh came close to doing the same following his standoff with then-Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.

It is not that Governors have refused to read the speeches in other states. But in almost all such cases, the Assembly has resolved that the speeches were “taken as read”, avoiding any controversy.

Governor Ravi’s action comes against the backdrop of serious differences he has been having with the DMK government on various issues, including keeping the bills passed by the Assembly pending. He is said to be sitting on (the legal word could be: ‘bills under consideration’) as many as 15 bills for months.

He also ruffled the feathers of the DMK by changing the name of Tamil Nadu to “Tamizhagam” and sending his Pongal invites under the Tamizhagam state. Wonder from where he drew this power? The Governor has not made it clear so far.

While Ravi’s actions did not behove the high office he holds, the uneasy relationship between Governors and state governments has been on the rise, especially in those states run by non-BJP-ruled parties. It is as though the Governors are involved in a show of competitive loyalty to the party that runs the Union government. Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, Punjab, Delhi, and West Bengal, when Jagdeep Dhankar was the Governor, have seen acrimonious ties. One hopes this will end in the interest of better coordination between the Union government and the states and smooth functioning of the federal set-up.

(The writer is a senior journalist based in Bengaluru.)