Tamil Nadu Governor Refuses to Deliver Customary Address

by

Tamil Nadu Governor’s Refusal to Deliver Customary Address: A Deep Dive into India’s Federal Crisis

Introduction

The relationship between Governors and elected State governments in India has historically been delicate, often swinging between cooperation and confrontation. On January 20, 2026, this tension reached an unprecedented level in Tamil Nadu when Governor R.N. Ravi refused to read the customary policy address prepared by the Tamil Nadu government and walked out of the Legislative Assembly. This dramatic and constitutionally sensitive development has sparked a national debate on the limits of the Governor’s role, the sanctity of legislative procedures, and the state of Indian federalism today.

According to The Hindu, Governor Ravi began the session by offering New Year greetings but deviated from the prepared speech despite repeated pleas from the Speaker, eventually walking out after refusing to follow procedure.The Assembly later passed a resolution to treat the Cabinet-approved speech as “deemed to be read,” effectively nullifying the Governor’s actions. This incident, though specific to Tamil Nadu, mirrors a larger national pattern of growing friction between Governors (appointed by the Centre) and states governed by opposition parties.

This long article explores the event in depth: the constitutional framework, political implications, historical significance, federal concerns, and possible reforms. It also places the incident in the backdrop of India’s evolving centre–state relations and the increasing politicization of constitutional offices.

I. What Happened in the Assembly? A Step-by-Step Breakdown

1. The Customary Address

Every first session of a State Legislature begins with an address from the Governor under Article 176 of the Constitution. This address outlines the government’s policy agenda for the upcoming year and is prepared entirely by the elected Council of Ministers.

2. The Tamil Nadu Governor’s Deviations

As per the newspaper report:

  • After entering the Assembly and standing through the Tamil Thaai Vazhthu (state anthem), the Governor sat down.
  • The prepared address was displayed on a digital tablet before him as per procedure.
  • Instead of reading the official speech, the Governor began making remarks unrelated to the text.
  • Speaker M. Appavu repeatedly asked him to stick to the government-approved speech.
  • The Governor ignored these requests and continued diverging.
  • Within minutes, he stopped speaking, refused to proceed with the official text, and walked out of the House.

This walkout is unprecedented in Tamil Nadu’s legislative history.

3. Government’s Reaction

Chief Minister M.K. Stalin moved a resolution declaring:

“Only the Governor’s Address approved by the Cabinet will be taken as read.”

The Assembly unanimously passed it. Stalin also declared that the DMK would push for a constitutional amendment to end the practice of Governor’s addresses at the start of legislative sessions.

4. Governor’s Office’s Counter-Claim

Shortly after the walkout, the Raj Bhavan issued a statement alleging:

  • The address contained “unsubstantiated and misleading claims.”
  • The Governor’s microphone was “repeatedly turned off.”
  • He was “not allowed to speak freely.”
    (These claims were denied by the Speaker and ministers.)

II. Why This Event Is Constitutionally Significant

1. Article 176: Mandatory Governor’s Address

The Governor’s address is not optional.

It is constitutional convention that:

  • The Government drafts the entire speech.
  • The Governor reads it as a formality.
  • It symbolically represents that the Governor and the elected government are aligned in governance.

A Governor refusing to read the address breaks convention and undermines constitutional norms.

2. Role of Governor as a Nominal Head (Articles 153–162)

The Constitution envisions the Governor as:

  • A ceremonial head
  • A guardian of constitutional values
  • A figure who acts on aid and advice of the Council of Ministers

He is NOT meant to be:

  • An independent political actor
  • A critic of government policy
  • A parallel power center

3. Supreme Court Precedents

Several judgments have clarified the Governor’s role:

  • Nabam Rebia vs. Deputy Speaker (2016) – Governor must act on the aid and advice of ministers except in rare situations.
  • Shamsher Singh (1974) – Governor is a “constitutional head,” not an arbitrary authority.
  • B.P. Singhal (2010) – Governor must act impartially and not on political motivations.

By refusing to read the speech, the Governor arguably violates these principles.

III. Political Context Behind the Incident

1. Growing Tension Between the DMK Government and the Governor

Tamil Nadu has witnessed frequent public clashes between Governor Ravi and the DMK government:

  • Delay in approving bills passed by Assembly
  • His remarks criticizing “Dravidian model”
  • His statements on Sanatana Dharma
  • Governor’s refusal to inaugurate official events due to ideological reasons
  • Conflicts over appointments in universities

2. Governor Seen as Political Appointee

Opposition-ruled states often accuse Governors of:

  • Acting as agents of the Central government
  • Interfering in legislative matters
  • Blocking bills
  • Running parallel governance

This incident reinforces these perceptions.

3. DMK’s Political Standpoint

Historically, the DMK has advocated:

  • Strong state autonomy
  • Limiting Governor’s powers
  • Protecting federalism

Thus, the walkout strengthens DMK’s longstanding narrative of Centre’s overreach.

The Tamil Nadu incident is not isolated. Across the country, Governors in several opposition-ruled states have clashed with State governments.

Examples from Recent Years:

  1. Kerala – Governor Arif Mohammed Khan refused to sign bills for months, sparking constitutional litigation.
  2. Punjab – Governor delayed convening the Assembly session.
  3. West Bengal – Repeated confrontations with CM Mamata Banerjee.
  4. Telangana (earlier) – Bills pending for prolonged periods.
  5. Maharashtra – Allegations of using the Governor’s office to manipulate government formation.

Pattern Emerging

Governors are increasingly using discretionary powers politically, leading to the following:

  • Governance paralysis
  • Breakdown of trust
  • Constitutional instability
  • Increased Centre–State polarization

Tamil Nadu’s event sits squarely within this national pattern.

V. What Does the Constitution Say About Such Situations?

1. Governor Cannot Modify or Reject the Address

The address is merely a mouthpiece of the elected Cabinet. Governors cannot:

  • Add or delete content
  • Express dissent
  • Walk out in protest

2. Assembly’s Resolution is Constitutionally Valid

The Tamil Nadu Assembly’s action—declaring the approved speech as “deemed read”—is permissible because:

  • The Governor’s refusal cannot stop legislative business
  • The Cabinet’s authority is supreme in framing policies

3. Can This Be Challenged in Court?

Potential grounds for challenge include:

  • Violation of constitutional convention
  • Breach of Article 361 immunity misuse
  • Hindrance to legislative functioning

Courts may not interfere directly in internal legislative procedures, but they can clarify the Governor’s limits.

VI. Implications for Indian Federalism

1. Weakening of Constitutional Morality

The Constitution functions not only through law but through conventions. Violating these traditions erodes:

  • Trust
  • Balance of power
  • Good governance

2. Increasing Centralization

Governors rejecting state mandates feed into the perception of excessive central control.

3. Undermining the Mandate of the People

Governors are unelected. When they challenge elected governments, it:

  • Undermines democracy
  • Challenges the people’s mandate
  • Creates parallel authority

4. Impact on Legislative Stability

Such incidents can delay:

  • Judgements
  • Bills
  • Budgets
  • Policy rollouts

5. Administrative Paralysis

The Governor’s office plays a key role in:

  • University appointments
  • Bill assent
  • Summoning the Assembly

Conflicts can paralyze state functioning.

VII. Should India Reform the Governor System?

Recommendations from Expert Committees

1. Sarkaria Commission (1988)

Suggested restricting Governor’s discretionary powers.

2. Punchhi Commission (2010)

Proposed:

  • Fixed tenure for Governors
  • Prohibition on post-retirement government jobs
  • Clear guidelines on bill assent timelines
  • Prevention of political interference

3. Supreme Court Calls for Reform

Multiple judgments have implicitly questioned the wide discretionary space Governors currently enjoy.

What Reforms Are Needed Now?

  1. Time-bound assent to Bills – e.g., within 3 months
  2. Mandatory adherence to Cabinet instructions in speeches
  3. Removal only via a transparent, parliamentary process
  4. Prevent Governors from engaging in political commentary
  5. Limit interference in education, universities, and police
  6. Codify constitutional conventions in writing

VIII. TN Government’s Proposal: Remove the Governor’s Address Requirement

After the incident, CM Stalin declared the DMK’s intention to seek the removal of the annual Governor’s address tradition.

Is this constitutionally feasible?

  • This requires constitutional amendment to Article 176.
  • Amendments involving federal structure require ratification by half the states.
  • Politically difficult, but academically debated.

Arguments in Favor

  • The practice is colonial legacy
  • Governors use it politically
  • Speeches no longer reflect cooperative governance

Arguments Against

  • Removing the address weakens legislative tradition
  • Symbolism of harmony between state institutions is lost
  • Reduced transparency on government plans

This debate is likely to intensify.

IX. Conclusion

The Tamil Nadu Governor’s refusal to read the customary address is not just a political spat; it is a constitutional flashpoint highlighting growing stress in India’s federal architecture. The incident raises deep questions:

  • Are Governors acting beyond their constitutional mandate?
  • Is Indian federalism being undermined?
  • Should reforms define clearer limits to the Governor’s discretion?
  • Can states function smoothly if constitutional offices behave politically?

In a democracy, unelected authorities must respect the authority of the elected executive. When conventions break down, institutions weaken, and governance suffers.

The Tamil Nadu episode reflects the urgent need to re-examine the role of Governors in India’s federal framework. It may well be remembered as a turning point that pushed India toward clearer constitutional boundaries and stronger state autonomy.

Leave a Comment