Walkouts by Governors Test Constitutional Limits 

Syllabus: GS2/ Polity and Governance

Context

• Recent walkouts by Governors in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala during state assembly sessions have sparked constitutional debates over gubernatorial discretion versus elected governments’ authority.
  • These incidents test the limits of Article 176 (Governor’s mandatory address) and Article 163 (aid and advice of Council of Ministers).

About the Governor

• The governor is the chief executive head of the state and is appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal. 
• It has an independent constitutional office and is not under the control of or subordinate to the Union government. 

Constitutional Position of the Governor

• Article 176(1) states that the Governor “shall” address the Legislative Assembly (or both Houses where a Legislative Council exists) at the commencement of the first session each year.
  • The address serves to inform the Legislature of the causes of its summons, reflecting the policy priorities of the elected government.
  • The address is not the personal opinion of the Governor, it represents the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, making it a formal executive function, not a discretionary one.

Concerns

• Erosion of Constitutional Mandate: The Governor’s selective reading or walkout from the address under Article 176(1) violates the mandatory nature of the provision and undermines the constitutional scheme envisaging a formal communication between the elected government and the Legislature.
• Threat to Parliamentary Sovereignty: Expanding discretion in routine executive functions creates the danger of the Governor acting as a parallel authority, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly warned would hollow out parliamentary democracy.

Supreme Court’s Jurisprudence on Governor’s Role

• In Shamsher Singh vs State of Punjab (1974), the Court established that the Governors are formal heads who must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, not independent authorities.
  • The Court observed that for such a functionary to publicly criticize settled Cabinet policy is an “unconstitutional faux pas” violating the parliamentary system.
• In the Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker (2016) case, the Court ruled that the Governor is a formal head and, under Article 163, must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, with discretion limited only to specific constitutional provisions.
• In the State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025), the court held that gubernatorial discretion cannot negate or obstruct a responsible elected government.

Way Ahead

• Strengthening cooperative federalism: Institutional mechanisms, such as regular consultation between Governors and State governments, could reduce friction.
• Adherence to Constitutional Text and Conventions: Governors should act strictly in accordance with the Constitution and well-established conventions, particularly in matters relating to assent to Bills and addressing the Legislature.
• Revisiting Sarkaria and Punchhi Commission recommendations: Both commissions stressed the need for Governors to act impartially and within constitutional limits.

Source: TH