Gubernatorial Walkouts test Constitutional Limits
Context:
The walkouts of Governors from the inaugural State Legislative Assembly sessions in Opposition-ruled Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala mark a departure from the “limited freewheeling” allowed to them under the Constitution.
Constitutional Mandate:
Article 176(1) mandates that the Governor "shall" address the Legislative Assembly (or both Houses) at the commencement of the first session of each year.
The address articulates the policy of the State Cabinet, whose advice the Governors are to abide.
It is not a personal speech but a government document.
Constitutional Limits:
The Constituent Assembly Debates quoted Dr. B.R. Ambedkar on the role of the Governor in Parliamentary democracy, Governor has no functions but has certain duties to perform.
The following Presidential Reference agreed to term the Governor as a “guide, philosopher and a friend of the government and the people in general”.
Judicial Pronouncements:
The Supreme Court in its judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case held that the discretionary powers of the Governor cannot have the “effect of negating the powers of a responsible government”.
It is a constitutional duty to be performed in accordance with the aid and advice of the elected government.
The Supreme Court, in the Nabam Rebia case (2016), clarified that addressing the House under Article 175(1) or making a special address under Article 176(1) is an "executive function" performed by the Governor on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
Shamsher Singh vs. State of Punjab (1974):
A seven-judge Constitution Bench ruled that a Governor taking public stances critical of government policy amounts to an "unconstitutional faux pas".
It noted that the "limited freewheeling" allowed to a Governor is not left to their "sweet will".