Introduction

• The recent episode in the Tamil Nadu Assembly, where Governor R.N. Ravi declined to deliver the customary address, has reignited debates surrounding the significance of the Governor’s Address.
• He actually walked out in response to an insult of National Anthem in TN Assembly.

President’s/Governor’s Address

• Constitutional mandate: Articles 87 and 176 of the Constitution confer authority upon the President and Governor, respectively, to address the legislature.
• Occasions for Address: The addresses are reserved for two specific occasions: the commencement of a new legislative session post-election and the inauguration of the annual legislative session.
• Significance: Termed the President’s or Governor’s Address, these speeches are pivotal for initiating legislative proceedings.

Governor’s Address to the State Legislature: A Constitutional Obligation

• Prescribed Duties: Article 176 delineates the Governor’s obligation to address the Legislative Assembly at the onset of each legislative year and post-general elections, with both Houses convened if a Legislative Council exists.
• Procedural Norms: Established rules govern the time allocated for deliberating the address’s contents, ensuring parliamentary discourse.

Global Parallels: Similar Practices across Democracies

• Cross-National Comparison: Analogous provisions are observed in democratic nations worldwide.
• State of the Union: In the United States, it manifests as the “State of the Union” address (1790), while in the United Kingdom, it is the Queen’s Speech (1536), heralding the parliamentary year’s commencement.
• Indian Context: India’s Presidential Address mirrors the British model, reflecting the ceremonial role of the President, a sentiment echoed during the Constitution’s framing by Dr. B R Ambedkar.

Features of the Address Content

[A] Address Content: Proposals and Achievements

• Legislative Agenda: The President’s or Governor’s speech encapsulates legislative proposals and government policy initiatives, coupled with a retrospective glance at previous accomplishments.
• Government Input: Inputs for this address are curated from various government ministries, embodying the administration’s agenda.

[B] Authorship and Agency: Government Responsibility

• Constitutional Mandate: Governed by constitutional mandate, both the President and Governor are obligated to adhere to the Cabinet’s advice (1950) in their functions, including address preparation.
• Policy Reflection: Hence, the address is meticulously crafted by the government, serving as a reflection of its policy stance.

[C] Flexibility vs. Normative Adherence: Presidential/Governor Discretion

• Adherence to Protocol: While refusal to deliver the address is impermissible, deviations from the prepared script are permissible.
• Instances of Departure: Instances of Governors veering off the scripted path have transpired, although such actions remain rare for Presidents.

Judicial Pronouncement: Upholding Constitutional Framework

• Legal Precedent: The Supreme Court, in Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1975), underscored the President’s (or Governor’s) adherence to Cabinet advice across functions.
• Contested Discretion: While discretion to modify the speech is contested, any departure from parliamentary norms may invoke debate.

R. Venkataraman’s Perspective

• Venkataraman’s Critique: R. Venkataraman, who served as President from 1987 to 1992, vehemently opposed the practice of Presidential and Governor’s addresses, deeming it a “British anachronism” and a “meaningless formality.”
• Calls for Constitutional Amendment: Venkataraman repeatedly urged PM Rajiv Gandhi and Chandra Shekher to abolish this tradition through a Constitutional amendment, emphasizing its lack of relevance and inherent biases.

Perceptions of the Address

• Government’s Voice: Venkataraman viewed the address as a mere reflection of the ruling regime’s perspectives, rendering Presidents and Governors mere “mouthpieces” devoid of independent expression.
• Controversies and Criticism: He expressed dismay over controversies surrounding Governors’ addresses in states like Maharashtra and West Bengal, condemning the opposition’s heckling of figures like Governor Nurul Hasan.
• Symbolic Adjustments: Venkataraman, in presenting his maiden Presidential address in 1988, advocated for subtle changes like replacing “My government” with “The government,” aligning with India’s constitutional ethos framed by the people.
• Legacy of British Colonialism: He underscored the incongruity of retaining British-era conventions in India’s democratic framework, emphasizing the need for symbolic adjustments to reflect the nation’s sovereignty.

Conclusion

• Symbol of Governance: The tradition of Presidential and Governor’s addresses, rooted in constitutional mandate, and symbolizes the fusion of ceremonial protocol with legislative functionality.
• Executive-Legislative Nexus: As integral components of democratic governance, these addresses underscore the synergy between executive authority and parliamentary accountability, while navigating the delicate balance between tradition and evolving norms.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

Introduction

• A public interest litigation filed by former Rajya Sabha MP Dr. Subramanian Swamy seeks to delete the words “Socialist” & “Secular” from the Preamble to the Constitution of India.
• The case questions the validity of the insertion of these words via the 42nd Constitution Amendment of 1976 during Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s tenure.
• It argues that the amendment was beyond the amending power of the Parliament under Article 368.

Why discuss Preamble?

• Original Draft: The Preamble was adopted on November 26, 1949, by the Constituent Assembly of India, setting out the Constitution’s guiding purpose and principles.
• 1976 Amendment: The 42nd Constitution Amendment introduced the words “Socialist” and “Secular” to the Preamble, altering its initial declaration.
• Legal Implications: The insertion faces scrutiny over its legality and alignment with the Constitution’s foundational principles.

Amending the Preamble

• Judicial Inquiry: During the hearing, Justice Datta remarked on the amendability of the Preamble. He pondered if the Preamble could have been amended earlier (by the 42nd Amendment Act in 1976) to include the words Socialist and Secular while retaining the date of adoption (November 29, 1949).
• Discussion on Academic Grounds: The judge prompted counsels to consider, academically, the feasibility of amending the Preamble while preserving its original adoption date.
• Historical Context: Justice Datta noted that the Preamble, unique with its specified adoption date, underwent changes, but the inclusion of “Socialist” and “Secular” was a notable amendment.
• Legal Challenge: The petition challenges the constitutionality of the insertion, arguing that it contradicts the Constitution’s original intent and undermines the citizens’ right to choose their political ideologies.
• Kesavananda Bharti Precedent: The inquiry draws upon the landmark Kesavananda Bharti case (1973) where the Supreme Court held that the Preamble was an integral part of the Constitution and subject to amendment, provided it didn’t violate the Constitution’s basic structure.

Addition of “Socialist” and “Secular”

• The 42nd Amendment: During the Emergency imposed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1976, the terms “socialist” and “secular” were added to the Preamble through The Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976.
• Indira Gandhi’s Agenda: Indira Gandhi’s government aimed to emphasize a socialist and pro-poor image, aligning with slogans such as “garibi hatao” (Eradicate poverty). The addition of “socialist” highlighted socialism as a fundamental goal of the Indian state.
• Distinctive Indian Socialism: The Indian version of socialism did not endorse complete nationalization but emphasized selective nationalization of essential sectors.

Understanding “Secular”

• Religious Diversity: India is home to diverse religious beliefs and practices. The term “secular” was added to the Preamble to promote unity and fraternity among people of various faiths.
• State Neutrality: Secularism in the Indian context implies that the state maintains neutrality and impartiality towards all religions. It does not favor any particular religion as a “state religion.”
• Secularism as Law: Articles 25-28 of the Constitution secure the secular nature of the Indian state.
• Inherent in the Constitution: The philosophy of secularism was inherent in the Constitution even before the 42nd Amendment.

Debates Surrounding “Socialist” and “Secular”

• Consensus on Secularism: The concept of secularism was already part of the Constitution’s philosophy. The insertion of the word “secular” in the Preamble simply made explicit what was implicit in various provisions.
• Constituent Assembly Discussions: The Constituent Assembly debated including these words in the Preamble but decided against it.
• Dr. B. R. Ambedkar’s Perspective: Dr. B. R. Ambedkar argued that issues related to the state’s policy, organization, and economic aspects should be determined by the people, not dictated by the Constitution itself.
• Ongoing Debates: Over the years, there have been petitions and discussions regarding the removal of “socialist” and “secular” from the Preamble. Some argue that these terms were added arbitrarily during the Emergency.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court’s inquiry into the amendment of the Preamble reflects a critical examination of constitutional principles.
• The case raises fundamental questions about the scope of parliamentary amending power and the preservation of constitutional integrity.
• The outcome of this legal challenge will have significant implications for the interpretation of the Constitution’s core values and the balance of power between Parliament and the judiciary.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now