Introduction
The Governor–State Government relationship has long been a sensitive area within India’s federal structure. On January 21, 2026, a major constitutional controversy unfolded in Kerala after Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan publicly stated that Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar had altered key paragraphs of the Cabinet-approved speech that he was constitutionally required to deliver before the Legislative Assembly. This incident once again ignited the debate around the role, neutrality, and discretionary limits of Governors in India’s parliamentary democracy.
Background of the Incident
According to the report, the Kerala Chief Minister revealed in the Assembly that the Governor modified paragraphs 12, 15, and 16 of the policy speech approved by the Cabinet, with omissions and additions not authorized by the government. The CM insisted that only the Cabinet-approved version would prevail, citing constitutional convention.
What the Governor Altered
The Cabinet-approved paragraph stated that Kerala was facing “fiscal stress arising from a series of adverse Union Government actions that undermine the principles of fiscal federalism.” The Governor diluted this by replacing it with a vague reference to “curtailment of advances.” The change shifted the tone from a political critique to a neutral administrative statement.
This modification created political uproar because the Governor’s address is mandated by Article 176 of the Constitution as a statement of the government’s policies—not his own.
Constitutional Significance
This incident brings forth multiple constitutional themes:
1. Article 176 – Governor’s Address
The Governor reads the address prepared by the Council of Ministers. The Governor cannot alter it. Doing so interferes with the executive’s authority.
2. Governor’s Role as a Nominal Head
Articles 153–162 place the Governor as a constitutional head whose functions are exercised on the aid and advice of the elected government.
3. Issue of Federal Friction
In recent years, several states—Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Kerala, West Bengal—have accused Governors of overstepping their roles.
Political Reaction
The Kerala government immediately requested the Speaker to record only the Cabinet-approved version, which the Assembly accepted. Opposition parties called the episode a “scripted act.”
Broader Trends Across India
This incident is not an isolated occurrence. Recent years have witnessed:
- Governors refusing to sign bills
- Delayed assent to legislation
- Refusal to read prepared addresses (as also reported in the same edition for Tamil Nadu)
- Public disagreements between Governors and CMs
This reinforces concerns that the office is drifting toward partisan behavior.
Impact on Federalism
Such actions can create administrative paralysis in states and weaken the cooperative federal framework envisaged by the Constitution. It raises questions about:
- Whether the Governor can act independently
- Whether constitutional conventions are being eroded
- Whether political neutrality is being compromised
Conclusion
The Kerala incident adds to a growing list of federal tensions involving Governors. The episode revives calls from various committees—including the Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions—to limit the discretionary powers of Governors and ensure they remain politically neutral custodians of the Constitution.
Source: The HINDU, Times Of India, Sahara