Governor vs Government

Governor vs Government

Subject: Polity

Section: Federalism

Context:

• In the ongoing tussle with the ruling government in Tamil Nadu, Governor skipped a few words including, the ‘Dravidian model of governance thereafter the Chief Minister interrupted the speech and expressed regret that the Governor had avoided certain portions of the prepared address.
• Governor then walked out of the Assembly after Chief Minister moved a resolution which stated that only the customary speech by the government would go on record.

About Governor’s address:

• The Governor is expected to address the first Assembly session of the state every year and the first session of a new Legislature after a general election, under Articles 175 and 176 of the Constitution.
• The Governor’s address is prepared by the state governmen
• It contains a review of the government’s activities and accomplishments in the previous year, its plans for the session, and policy and legislative proposals that the government plans on implementing in the coming year.
• It is prepared and submitted by the state government to the Governor beforehand, and it is the convention for the Governor to read it without any deviations.
• As per settled British convention since 1829, the governor must read the full speech as it is basically the government’s statement about which the office, like that of the British monarch, has no responsibility.

Incidents where Governor modified the address:

• Kerala’s Governor in 2018 omitted parts of the address that criticized the Union government for undermining principles of cooperative federalism.
• In 2017, the Tripura Governor skipped parts of his speech drafted by the state government that was critical to the union government. In 1969, the West Bengal Governor refused to read parts of the address prepared by the ruling government, which was critical of the Union government.

Court observation on Governor’s Right to edit the address:

1. Calcutta High Court in AndulGafoor Habibullah v. Speaker, West Bengal Assembly (1966) held that:

• The governor cannot decline to deliver his address and refuse to fulfill his constitutional duty. Thus, the address under Article 176 is mandatory.
• However, the HC held that when the governor fails to deliver his address under Article 176 and walks out of the House after laying down the address on the table of the House, this is mere irregularity, not illegality.
• Thus, it cannot be questioned under Article 212, wherein the validity of the House proceedings cannot be challenged on the ground of mere irregularity in the procedure.

2. The Calcutta HC in another incident held that the governor has the right to delete or not read irrelevant portions or portions which do not deal with the policy of the government.

• He may cut down the irrelevant issues, which have nothing to do with the policy and the programmes of the state legislature and which may be calculated to mislead the legislature itself.