In India, the Governor’s address to the State Assembly is a constitutional requirement that has recently become a major flashpoint for federal friction, particularly in states ruled by parties in opposition to the central government.
Under Article 176 of the Constitution, the Governor must address the Legislative Assembly at the start of the first session each year and after every general election. While this is meant to be a ceremonial presentation of the state government’s policies, it has recently evolved into a platform for significant political and legal standoffs.
Recent Controversies (2025–2026)
As of January 2026, several states have witnessed unprecedented scenes during the Governor’s address:
Tamil Nadu (January 20, 2026): Governor R.N. Ravi walked out of the Assembly without delivering the customary address. He cited disagreements with the content prepared by the state government, claiming it contained inaccuracies regarding investment figures and that the national anthem was "insulted." The Assembly later passed a resolution to record only the original Cabinet-approved speech.
Kerala (January 20, 2026): Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar delivered the address but omitted or modified specific paragraphs (12, 15, and 16) that criticized the central government’s stance on fiscal federalism and pending bills. Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan moved to have the original text prevail in the House records.
Karnataka (January 22, 2026): Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot delivered a truncated (shortened) version of the address and staged a walkout. This led to a heated exchange between the ruling Congress and the opposition BJP, with the government accusing the Governor of "insulting the national anthem" by leaving before it was played.
The Constitutional Conflict
The tension arises from a clash between the Governor’s "discretionary" view and the state government’s "policy" view.
Key Legal Precedents
Nabam Rebia Case (2016): The Supreme Court clarified that the Governor is not an executive head with independent power; they must generally act according to the Cabinet's advice.
West Bengal Speaker Case (1966): Established that the special address is not a mere formality but a vital constitutional duty to inform the legislature of the government's program.
Recent 2025 Ruling: In cases involving Tamil Nadu and Kerala, the Supreme Court has increasingly restricted the Governor’s power to "stall" the legislative process, emphasizing that "dialogue, not obstructionism" is the essence of federalism.
Practical Implications
When a Governor refuses to read the speech or skips parts of it, the state government usually:
Passes a resolution to accept the "full text" as if it were read.
The Speaker may use their powers to ensure the Cabinet-approved version enters the official record.
The "Motion of Thanks" on the Governor's address is then debated by the MLAs, often leading to fierce criticism of the Raj Bhavan (Governor's office).
State governments in opposition-ruled states (Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka) are currently relying on a long-standing "Chain of Jurisprudence" to argue that the Governor’s address belongs to the Cabinet, not the individual holding the office.
A summary of the key legal pillars used by state governments to challenge Governors who omit or skip parts of their speech:
1. The "Nominal Head" Doctrine
Case: Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974)
This is the foundational ruling by a seven-judge bench. It established that the Governor is a "formal or constitutional head" who must act only on the "aid and advice" of the Council of Ministers.
The Ruling: The Governor cannot exercise executive functions personally. The satisfaction of the Governor is actually the "satisfaction of the Council of Ministers."
Application today: States argue that because the address (Article 176) is a statement of policy, the Governor has no discretion to edit it. To do so would be to act as an independent executive, which Shamsher Singh forbids.
2. Discretionary Powers are "Minimal"
Case: Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016)
A five-judge bench clarified that the Governor's discretionary powers are not "all-pervasive."
The Ruling: The Governor can only act in their own discretion where the Constitution specifically allows (e.g., appointing a CM when no party has a majority). Summoning the house or delivering an address does not fall under this independent discretion.
Application today: State governments use this to argue that the Governor is "constitutionally bound" to read the text as provided. Refusal to do so is seen as an attempt to exercise "unfettered discretion" that the Supreme Court has already struck down.
3. The "Anti-Obstruction" Principle
Case: State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025)
In a landmark ruling on April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court took a strict stance against Governors "stalling" state business.
The Ruling: The Court held that a Governor cannot simply sit on Bills or delay legislative processes indefinitely. It stated the Governor must be a "catalyst, not an inhibitor" of democratic functions.
Application today: When Governors like R.N. Ravi (TN) or Thawar Chand Gehlot (Karnataka) walk out or skip paragraphs, states cite this 2025 ruling to argue that the Governor is acting as a "political inhibitor" rather than a constitutional facilitator.
The "Resolution" Strategy
Because of these rulings, Speakers in states like Kerala and Tamil Nadu have started using their residual powers to:
Declare the Governor’s omissions "null and void."
Order that the original text be printed in the Assembly Journal.
Argue that since the Governor "refused" to perform their duty, the House will proceed as if the duty was performed correctly (Deemed Reading).
Summary of Legal Arguments:
Article 163 / Shamsher Singh
The speech belongs to the Cabinet; the Governor is just the "voice."
Constitutional Duty Article 176
Delivering the address is a mandatory obligation, not a choice.
Federal Balance Nabam Rebia
Governors cannot use "discretion" to block the state's political message.
Reasonableness TN v. Governor (2025)
Actions must be done in "good faith" (bona fide) and within reasonable limits.
