Top News

Tamil Nadu: The recent developments in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly have sparked a significant constitutional and political debate regarding the role, conduct, and limits of authority of a state Governor in India’s federal structure. The controversy arose after Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin strongly criticised Governor R.N. Ravi for walking out of the Assembly without delivering the customary address at the beginning of the session, an action that has raised questions about constitutional propriety, democratic conventions, and institutional accountability.

Background of the Assembly Incident

At the commencement of the Assembly session, it is a long-established parliamentary convention for the Governor to read the address prepared by the elected state government. This address outlines the policies, priorities, and vision of the government for the year ahead. In this instance, Governor R.N. Ravi exited the House without reading the address, triggering immediate concern and protest from the ruling dispensation.

Chief Minister M.K. Stalin described the act as unbecoming of the constitutional office held by the Governor. According to him, such conduct undermines the dignity of the Assembly and disrupts the smooth functioning of democratic institutions that rely on mutual respect and adherence to established norms.

Constitutional Provisions and Article 176

Referring to Article 176 of the Indian Constitution, the Chief Minister clarified that the Governor’s Address is not a personal statement but a formal communication drafted by the elected government. The Governor’s role, as envisaged in the Constitution, is to read the address in full, without alteration, omission, or personal commentary.

M.K. Stalin emphasised that Article 176 does not grant discretionary power to the Governor to reject, edit, or seek explanations regarding the contents of the address. Any deviation from this process, he argued, amounts to a deliberate violation of constitutional principles and legislative conventions that have been followed consistently since Independence.

Repeated Disregard for Legislative Traditions

The Chief Minister noted that this was not an isolated incident. He pointed out that the Governor had, on earlier occasions, acted in ways that reflected disregard for Assembly traditions. Despite the state government providing responses to queries previously raised by the Governor, the latest action indicated a willful choice to ignore constitutional conventions.

Such behaviour, according to M.K. Stalin, reflects a lack of respect for a democratically elected Assembly that carries a rich legislative heritage and represents the will of the people. The Assembly, he asserted, is not merely a procedural forum but a cornerstone of representative democracy.

Historical and Ideological Perspective

During his address in the House, the Chief Minister recalled a speech he delivered on April 10, 2023, in which he cited the words of late leader and scholar C.N. Annadurai. Annadurai had famously questioned the necessity of the Governor’s office within a democratic framework. While acknowledging this ideological position, M.K. Stalin stressed that leaders like M. Karunanidhi, despite holding similar views, always extended the highest respect to the Governor’s office as long as it existed.

He reiterated that the present government has continued this tradition of institutional respect and restraint, even when ideological differences persist.

Allegations of Political Interference

M.K. Stalin accused the Governor of exceeding constitutional expectations by making political statements in public forums, attempting to obstruct the functioning of the elected government, and spreading misinformation. According to the Chief Minister, such actions blur the line between a neutral constitutional authority and partisan political engagement.

He asserted that a Governor is expected to act as a bridge between the Centre and the State, reflect the aspirations of the people, and cooperate with a government that has received a clear electoral mandate. Any conduct contrary to these principles, he said, damages public trust and weakens federal harmony.

Assembly Resolution and Its Implications

In response to the incident, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly unanimously passed a special resolution condemning the Governor’s walkout. The resolution declared that the Assembly does not accept the Governor’s refusal to read the address. It further stated that the English version of the speech, already uploaded to members’ computer systems, would be deemed as read and incorporated into the official Assembly records.

This move ensured continuity in legislative proceedings while also serving as a symbolic assertion of the Assembly’s authority and constitutional rights.

Call for Constitutional Reform

Thanking members across party lines for their support, the Chief Minister stated that the matter could not be treated as a one-day controversy. He announced that the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, along with like-minded political parties across India, would initiate steps to seek a constitutional amendment.

The proposed reform aims to abolish the practice of the Governor’s Address at the beginning of the first Assembly session of the year. According to M.K. Stalin, such a change would prevent future constitutional conflicts and reinforce the primacy of elected legislatures in a democratic system.

Broader Democratic Significance

This episode has reignited a national conversation on the balance of power between Governors and elected state governments. It highlights the need for clarity, restraint, and mutual respect among constitutional authorities to preserve democratic values and institutional integrity.

As debates on federalism, constitutional morality, and democratic accountability continue, the Tamil Nadu Assembly incident stands as a reminder that conventions, though unwritten, play a crucial role in sustaining the spirit of the Constitution.