Walkouts by Governors test constitutional limits

UPSC Syllabus GS2-Indian Polity

Introduction

The walkouts by Governors during inaugural sessions of State Legislatures in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala have raised serious constitutional questions. These actions challenge the limits of discretion allowed to Governors. The issue has brought renewed focus on Articles related to the Governor’s address, the role of the elected Cabinet, and the balance between constitutional duty and political neutrality.

Constitutional Role of the Governor (gubernatorial powers)?

Gubernatorial powers are the constitutional, legal, administrative, legislative, executive, judicial, and discretionary powers vested in the Governor of a state.

These powers are derived mainly from Articles 153 to 167 and 200–213 of the Constitution.

These powers enable the Governor to act as the constitutional head of the state, oversee its governance, and safeguard the Constitution while working with the state government.

Constitutional Provisions:

• Article 153: Provides for a Governor for one or more than one states.
• Article 154: The executive powers of the state are vested in the Governor and can be exercised directly or through subordinate officers in accordance with the Constitution.
• Article 155: Provides for the appointment of the Governor by the President by warrant under his hand and seal.
• Article 156: Provides the term of office of Governor- Appointed for a period of five years and holds office during the pleasure of the President. Pleasure of the President means that he can be removed anytime by the President, even before the expiry of five years.
• Article 157: Qualifications- He should be a citizen of India and must have completed the age of thirty-five years

3. Aid and advice principle: Under Article 163, the Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers except in areas where discretion is expressly provided.
4. 4. Discretionary Powers = Governor has two types of discretion in the execution of his work:

• Constitutional discretion which is discretion mentioned directly in the Constitution. This is exercised in matters such as reserving a bill for the consideration of the President, recommendation of the President’s rule under Article 356.
• Situational discretion which means hidden discretion that is derived from the exigencies of political situations. For instance, the appointment of Chief Minister of a state when no party has a clear cut majority in the state legislative assembly or when the chief minister in office dies suddenly and there is no obvious successor, dissolution of the state legislative assembly if the council of ministers has lost its majority etc.
• Representative role: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar stated that the Governor has no independent governing function. He acts as a representative of the people as a whole, not of any political party

Judicial Interpretation on Governor Conduct

1. Shamsher Singh judgment (1974):

• A seven-judge Bench ruled that Governors cannot publicly oppose Cabinet policy. Such conduct violates the parliamentary system.
• Warning against constitutional overreach:The court said free discretion in every function would weaken democracy and elevate the Governor beyond constitutional limits.
• Remote control principle: Even the limited freedom of the Governor is controlled by the Union Council of Ministers, which is accountable to Parliament.

2. Tamil Nadu Governor case (Supreme Court judgment):

• The Supreme Court ruled that gubernatorial discretion cannot have the effect of negating the powers of an elected and responsible State government.
• The Governor was described as a “guide, philosopher, and friend” of the government and the people, not an alternative power centre.

3. Nabam Rebia vs Deputy Speaker (2016):

• A five-judge Constitution Bench held that the Governor’s discretionary powers are strictly limited and clearly stated in the Constitution.
• Interpretation on legislative functions: The Court ruled that summoning the House under Article 174 cannot be done at the Governor’s discretion and must follow Cabinet advice.
• Interpretation on Governor’s address: The Court stated that addressing the House under Article 175(1) or delivering the special address under Article 176(1) are executive functions performed only on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.

Governor’s Address and Legal Precedents

1. Mandatory constitutional duty: Article 176(1) requires the Governor to address the Legislature at the first session each year and after Assembly elections.
2. Purpose of the address: The address informs the Legislature of the reasons for its summons and outlines the policies of the elected State government.
3. Executive nature of the address: The Supreme Court clarified that Articles 175 and 176 involve executive functions performed on Cabinet advice.
4. No authority to alter content: The speech reflects government policy. Any unilateral change by the Governor can make the speech politically indefensible.
5. Rajasthan High Court ruling (1966): A partial speech was held sufficient as long as the Governor communicated directly with elected representatives.
6. Calcutta High Court view: The address is mandatory, but partial delivery is only an irregularity, not illegality. Legislative proceedings remain valid.

Recent Crisis and Its Impacts

1. Walkouts from Assembly sessions: Governors in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala either skipped portions of the address or walked out during delivery.
2. Departure from constitutional practice: Such actions go beyond the “limited freewheeling” allowed under the Constitution.
3. Cabinet authority questioned: State leaders argue Governors cannot skip paragraphs approved by the Council of Ministers.
4. Possible judicial intervention: The Karnataka government may approach the Supreme Court seeking clarity on the constitutionality of such walkouts.
5. Risk of constitutional crisis: Selective reading or refusal to read the speech disrupts legislative accountability and undermines federal balance.
6. Budget session exception: In 2022, Telangana began its Budget Session without the Governor’s address as the session was treated as a continuation, not a new one.

Conclusion

The recent walkouts highlight growing strain between Governors and elected governments. Constitutional provisions, judicial rulings, and Assembly debates clearly limit gubernatorial discretion. Ignoring Cabinet advice weakens parliamentary democracy and federal balance. Clear judicial guidance and strict adherence to constitutional roles are essential to prevent recurring institutional conflict.

Question for practice:

Examine how recent walkouts by Governors during State Legislative Assembly sessions have tested constitutional limits on gubernatorial discretion and affected the balance between elected governments and constitutional authority in India.

Source: The Hindu and Deccan Herald