BENGALURU: With Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot not reading the speech prepared by the state government in his address to the joint session of the state legislature, experts are divided over the constitutional implications of his act.
The speech prepared by the government was critical about the Centre replacing the MGNREGA with the VB-G RAM G Act.
Chief Minister Siddaramaiah alleged that the Governor’s act was ‘unconstitutional’. Former Advocate General Ashok Haranahalli, however, disputed the chief minister’s views. “If the government says the Governor has not addressed the legislature that means they (government) cannot go ahead and conduct further proceedings. Whether the Governor reads a full speech or not he has fulfilled the formality of addressing the legislature. If you say not read it at all you cannot go on with the consequential proceedings. You may criticise as he did not read it in its entirety but the speech is there, it is part of the record whether he read it or not,” he said.
Former law and parliamentary affairs minister JC Madhuswamy said that when the Governor has the discretion to scrutinise the speech he may also omit parts of it. “There were such precedents and that is not unconstitutional,” he said.
Advocate and co-founder of Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy Alok Prasanna Kumar said the Governor’s action is unconstitutional. The state government, however, cannot move the Supreme Court as it cannot direct the Governor to give a speech in the Assembly in a particular way, he said.
“The Governor did the wrong thing. He may be appointed by the President but he’s not an agent of the Union government. He’s a constitutional authority who has to act in accordance with the Constitution. The Constitution requires the Governor to give the speech that the state government has written for him. He cannot agree or disagree with it,” he said.
He said the Governor’s address has a specific constitutional meaning. “It means reading out the speech prepared for him by the government. The President also does this, so too the UK monarch. They cannot simply say what they want and leave,” he said. “Since the President cannot do anything without the advice of the Union government, the state government needs to approach the Union government seeking the change of Governor,” he suggested.