Stalin’s proposal revives debate on federalism and the governor’s constitutional role
Tamil Nadu chief minister M.K. Stalin’s proposal for a Constitutional amendment seeking to scrap the customary speech by the governor in the first session of a state Assembly every calendar year is an expression of desperation which has its genesis in the theatrical show the governor in his state assiduously performs every year of late. It’s a worthy proposition to which even BJP may agree as it seeks to correct an anomaly which the Constitution-makers would not have imagined when they introduced it.
One of the lengthy discussions in the Constituent Assembly was about the role of the governors in states. A substantial number among them were opposed to the remnant of the British Raj being retained in an independent India as it could undermine the federal principles and create another power centre in the states, some others wanted the service of elderly statesmen made available to the state governments, especially when the country was putting in place systems for democratic governance. The Assembly finally went with the opinion of the chairman of the drafting committee Dr B.R. Ambedkar who suggested that the governor would be a link between the Union government and the states. Even those who advocated the retention of the gubernatorial position would not have, in their wildest imagination, foreseen governors acting as agents of the Union, undermining popular governments in the states and putting the will of the people, expressed through the Bills passed by the state legislatures, to certain death.
Article 176 (1) of the Constitution says the governor shall address the Legislative Assembly at the commencement of the first session after each general election to the Assembly and at the commencement of the first session of each year and inform the legislature of the causes of its summons. However, some governors throw all propriety to the wind and insult the state legislatures while performing the constitutional obligation of reading out a text approved by the state council of ministers.
While the governors of late in Kerala have skipped some parts, ostensibly the critical references to the Union government, the man in the Lok Bhavan in Chennai would create consternation and stage a show in the Assembly on the appointed day. In the end, the Chief Minister would move a resolution calling for the records to attach the governor’s speech as read. Mr Stalin has a point in that it can be done away with if the governor can be spared of that duty.
Taking the responsibility of reading a text authored by the Cabinet off the governors’ shoulders is in a way doing justice to them, as they may be spared the embarrassment of mouthing expressions against the same apparatus that commissioned them to their posts. It is a fact that the Constitution indeed gave governors certain powers but insisted that they must be exercised with caution in that they would act only on the aid and advice of the council of ministers. Moreover, the governor is not part of the state legislature unlike the President who is part of Parliament. It will do no harm if we start a discussion on the role and responsibilities of the office of the governor, the speech to the Assemblies included. The Constitution is a living document, after all.
