BENGALURU: A day after governors of Tamil Nadu and Kerala were at the centre of controversies over their respective addresses to assemblies, Karnataka Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot on Wednesday followed suit by refusing to address the joint session of state legislature scheduled for Thursday.
Parts of the governor’s address to the joint session on Thursday are said to contain certain references to the Centre which has repealed the UPA government’s Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) and replaced it with the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Aajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB-G RAM G) Act, due to which Governor Gehlot has refused to deliver his address. Gehlot raised reservations on 11 paragraphs in the speech drafted by the Karnataka cabinet with regard to the NDA repealing MGNREGA.
According to sources, since the governor is mandated to address the session as per Article 176(1) of the Constitution, he insists on skipping parts of the speech, using his discretion. They said as parts of the address were against VB-G RAM G, which has become an Act after the Bill was passed in Parliament, it would be unconstitutional to speak against it and he preferred to skip those parts.
A high-level delegation led by Karnataka Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister HK Patil, including Advocate-General K Shashi Kiran Shetty and CM’s legal advisor AS Ponnanna, rushed to Raj Bhavan and held talks with the governor on Wednesday evening.
Speaking to reporters after meeting the governor, Patil said, “It is mandatory for any governor to address the joint session of legislature as per Article 176(1) of the Constitution.
The governor has said that 11 paragraphs should be dropped from the speech. We will consult the Chief Minister and communicate to the governor. The Constitution is the same for everyone, whether the President, Governor or government. We have not been told so far that the Governor will not come to address the session.”
Patil said the delegation interacted with Governor Gehlot on the 11 paragraphs on VB-G RAM G Act in the address. “There is no situation to take the legal route as yet, and if it demands we will cross the bridge,” he said, subtly expressing confidence that the governor could address the joint session.
‘11 paragraphs in question could be modified, but not dropped’
The law minister said the governor expressed reservations after the Chief Secretary sent the draft, following which the latter consulted Chief Minister Siddaramaiah.
“The chief secretary has conveyed the outcome to the governor,” Patil said.
Patil’s delegation conveyed to Governor Gehlot that the 11 paragraphs in question could be modified, but not dropped. “Should we not be the voice of the people of the state with regard to injustice meted out to Karnataka by the Centre’s stance on policies. The rights of the farmers and farm labourers were withdrawn by replacing MGNREGA with VB-G RAM G. We cannot drop the paragraphs as it amounts to going against the decision of the (state) cabinet,” Patil said.
The session, which is scheduled to continue till January 31, was called by the Congress government, especially to debate the repeal of MGNREGA, and is expected to be a stormy one with intense debates and pandemonium.
A few days ago, the cabinet decided to wage a legal battle against the VB-G RAM G Act after deciding not to accept it, in line with the Congress’ nationwide ‘Save MGNREGA’ campaign. The ruling Congress plans to pass a resolution during this session against the Union government for repealing MGNREGA, which is expected to be vehemently opposed by the BJP-JDS opposition.
This is the third gubernatorial controversy in two consecutive days in three neighbouring non-BJP-ruled states. On Tuesday, Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi staged a walk-out of the assembly on the opening day of 2026’s inaugural session, alleging that the text of his customary address, curated by the DMK government, contained “inaccuracies”. On the same day, in Kerala, Governor Rajendra V Arlekar’s address was flagged by Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan over the former’s “omissions” and “alterations” to the text, parts of which were critical of the Centre but approved by the Kerala cabinet.