Meaningless formality: On Governors, their actions

The actions of Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi and his Kerala counterpart Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar during their customary Legislative Assembly addresses on January 20 came as no surprise to those who have followed the conduct of Governors in non BJP-ruled States. In Chennai, Mr. Ravi declined to read the speech, which, his office said, had “unsubstantiated claims and misleading statements” to justify his walk out. In the past three years, the Governor has either digressed from the prepared speech or refused to read it out before walking out. In Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan corrected the policy address made by the Governor, who, according to Mr. Vijayan, had skipped portions, as cleared by the Cabinet, and made additions. As long-serving Governors, Mr. Ravi and Mr. Arlekar should be aware that it is a time-honoured constitutional convention for a Governor to read out the exact text of the speech or special address which informs the State of the policies of an elected government. There has never been an incident of the British monarch departing from the official speech; and the Indian system is based on the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy. Yet, they have chosen to violate the convention even though they have no option but to function as “mouthpieces”, to quote former President R. Venkataraman, of the State governments. Mr. Ravi’s penchant is to court controversies but Mr. Arlekar did not repeat what he did last year, when he stuck to the script, striking an officially punctilious tone.

Apparently tired of Mr. Ravi’s repeated violations of the convention, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin has favoured a constitutional amendment to do away with the practice of commencing the first Assembly session of the year with the Governor’s address. Articles 87 and 176 of the Constitution require the President and Governors to make special addresses to Parliament and State legislatures, in the new year. About 35 years ago, President Venkataraman had repeatedly recommended to Prime Ministers Rajiv Gandhi and Chandra Shekhar that the practice be deleted through an amendment as he called it a “British anachronism” and a “meaningless formality”. This suggestion should be viewed in line with the thinking of the regime at the Centre, which seems to have taken upon itself the task of repealing “outdated colonial laws”. The language of the two Articles was borrowed from the rules of the House of Commons. Nothing would be lost if the Articles are scrapped, as the President and the Governors still retain their right to address the legislature under Articles 86 and 175. Importantly, Governors should not assume powers and functions that are not envisaged under the Constitution and should set an example of respecting the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

Overall Analysis

The editorial sharply criticises the conduct of Governors in non-BJP-ruled States, using recent incidents in Tamil Nadu and Kerala to highlight a broader constitutional problem. It opens with a matter-of-fact tone, noting that the Governors’ actions were “no surprise”, immediately suggesting a pattern rather than isolated lapses. The language establishes continuity and repetition, framing the issue as systemic rather than episodic.

The piece then explains how the Governors deviated from established constitutional convention during their Assembly addresses. By contrasting their conduct with the Westminster tradition — where the head of state strictly adheres to the prepared speech — the editorial underscores the seriousness of the breach. The phrase “time-honoured constitutional convention” reinforces the idea that this is not a trivial procedural matter but a foundational democratic practice. Quoting former President R. Venkataraman’s description of Governors as “mouthpieces” of elected governments strengthens the argument through institutional authority.

In the second half, the editorial shifts from criticism to reform. It discusses Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin’s proposal to amend the Constitution to remove the mandatory Governor’s address at the start of legislative sessions. The language here is analytical and pragmatic, revisiting earlier arguments by President Venkataraman, who labelled the practice a “British anachronism” and a “meaningless formality”. By linking this suggestion to the Centre’s stated objective of repealing colonial-era laws, the editorial exposes an irony and appeals to ideological consistency.

The concluding section reiterates constitutional boundaries, stressing that Governors must not arrogate powers beyond what the Constitution allows. The language is firm yet restrained, emphasising the need to respect both the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Overall, the editorial blends legal reasoning with normative judgment to argue that constitutional conventions matter as much as written law.

Important Vocabulary (5)

1. Customary – based on long-standing practice or tradition.
2. Convention – an accepted practice not legally binding but constitutionally important.
3. Anachronism – something outdated and no longer appropriate to the present time.
4. Punctilious – showing great attention to formal rules or details.
5. Envisaged – thought of or planned in advance.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial concludes that Governors who flout constitutional conventions weaken democratic norms and federal balance. It supports reconsidering outdated practices but firmly insists that until reforms occur, Governors must act strictly within their constitutional role.

Tone: Critical, constitutional, and reform-oriented — combining legal reasoning with a strong defence of democratic propriety.