First session of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly in 2023 | Photo Credit: DIPR/Special Arrangement
The Governor of Tamil Nadu, in the customary Governor’s Address to the members of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly (on January 9, first session for 2023), omitted a crucial and politically significant paragraph, which has gone up a hornet’s nest in the State. ,
The paragraph under consideration refers to the Dravidian model of governance which has great political and cultural significance especially in Tamil Nadu. The present Governor has no emotional connection with the concept of Dravidian model of governance or politics or its rich cultural past (evident in his speeches and remarks), which is understandable. The issue here is not the Governor’s personal liking or disliking of a particular political ideology or cultural tradition, but whether a constitutional authority can deviate from well-established and mandated constitutional practices while performing a constitutional function.
this is the full address
Article 176 of the Constitution requires the Governor to compulsorily address the members of the legislature at the beginning of the first session of each year and inform them of the reasons for its summoning. Clause two states that the legislature shall discuss the matters specified in such address. “Address” here means the full address and not a shortened or garbled version. Therefore, what the governor reads to the legislators is a complete address, the entire contents of which are necessarily discussed by the legislators in the House.
Here, the Constitution gives a specific direction to the House to take time to discuss the contents of the Governor’s Address. It is of particular importance that the Constitution nowhere else says that the legislature should make rules for the allotment of time for the discussion of any particular matter other than the address by the Governor under Article 176. Governor.
This will become more clear when we consider Article 175 which says that the Governor can address the Legislature and for this purpose the presence of the members is required. The Governor’s address under Article 175 is not a mandatory address unlike Article 176. Article 175 does not speak about any discussion of the contents of such address; But Article 176 requires discussion on the matters contained in the Governor’s Address. The reason behind the constitution making such a distinction between the two addresses by the same constitutional authority, namely the governor, to the same member of the legislature, is that the address in article 176 contains the policies and programs of the elected government of the state which are to be followed by the legislature. Copy is accountable. The accountability of the executive to the elected representatives of the people is the essence of parliamentary democracy.
Therefore, through the Governor’s Address at the beginning of the first session of each year, the government informs the legislature of its major legislative programs for that year, its achievements in the previous year, and its clear developmental roadmap for the future. program. These programs and policies of the government are conveyed to the legislature through the governor. Thus, the address under Article 176 is of great importance.
content by the government
When the Constitution has given so much importance to this Address, can the Governor ignore it and omit some paragraphs of the Address or add some of his own? Omitting the paragraphs of the Address would simply mean that the Governor does not accept or agree with those views. Anyone familiar with the constitutional system in India knows that the Governor’s speech under Article 176 is the speech prepared by the government. It does not contain the personal views of the Governor but the policies and programs of the elected government. The Government alone is responsible for the content of the Address and not the Governor. The governor cannot change a word on his own. Therefore, by deliberately not reading certain portions of the Address, the Governor has gone against the mandate of Article 176. It is another matter that the governor is not able to read the entire speech due to the ruckus created by the members of the assembly. But the Governor cannot deliberately omit paragraphs of the Address because the Constitution does not allow him to disagree with the matters contained in the Address or to express his views therein.
The actions of governors in some opposition-ruled states have often come under critical scrutiny. Sitting on a bill passed by the Assembly without exercising any option given by the Constitution, and thus thwarting the entire legislative exercise, is clearly against the mandate of the Constitution. The Constitution does not give the Governor the option of sitting on a bill passed by the Assembly. But the governors feel that since it does not specify any time limit for assent to a bill, they can sit on it without exercising any of the options contained in Article 200. This is a gross misinterpretation of a constitutional provision. Article 200 requires the governor to either give assent or withdraw assent or send the bill back to the assembly for reconsideration, in which case if the assembly re-passes it in the same form without any changes, the governor It has to be agreed upon. He can also send the bill for the consideration of the President in some rare cases. Thus, Article 200 clearly states that the Governor cannot sit on a bill and thus thwart the legislative exercise carried out by the Assembly. In Britain, it is unconstitutional for the monarch to give assent to a bill passed by Parliament.
now open challenge
All these problems now arise because of the inexplicable attempt to question and challenge long-established constitutional positions. Governors have suddenly become active and openly challenging and criticizing the Chief Ministers and State Governments. Some governors are even holding press conferences to attack the chief ministers. The displeasure of the Governor is being expressed openly. Bills are piling up in the Raj Bhavan without taking any decision. From Shamsher Singh (1974) to Nabam Rebia (2016), the Supreme Court has consistently held that the Governor can act only on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and exercise any executive powers independently, ignoring the elected government. Can’t use. In the Nabam Rebia case, the Court has held “… such a nominee cannot have overriding authority over the representatives of the people who constitute the House or Houses of the State Legislature (duly elected from constituencies) but) ) and/or even the executive government functioning under the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister.”
BR Ambedkar had said in the Constituent Assembly: “If the Constitution remains in principle as we wish it to be, that the Governor should be a purely constitutional Governor, with no power to interfere with the administration of the province.” No, .. ..”
The Supreme Court in the case of Shamsher Singh said, “The Constitution does not aim at providing a parallel administration within the State, which allows the Governor to go against the advice of the Council of Ministers.”
These are voices of wisdom that must be heeded if we are to preserve the integrity of the system. If constitutional officers deliberately cross the line and put pressure on the system, democracy will be in danger.
PDT Acharya is the former Secretary General of Lok Sabha