The Governor: A Constitutional Necessity, Not a Political Ornament
Politicians who run parties from a letterhead at home and those who stage dramas of protest with banners at the doorstep are spreading a toxic narrative among the masses: “Why does a state even need a Governor?”
These groups even have a catchy slogan: “A Governor for a country is as useless as a beard for a goat.” To these “intellectuals,” both are purposeless. Even ordinary citizens like us, listening to such rhetoric, begin to cultivate the foolish notion that the office of the Governor is indeed redundant. The greatest irony is that we mistake these thoughts for enlightened thinking.
Whom would you ask for advice on how to swim? Someone who knows how to swim, right? To understand how a biological cell functions, is it not logical to ask a biology expert? We should not blindly accept political slogans as intellectual truths just because they serve a specific political agenda. Just as you learn swimming from a swimmer or biology from a teacher, you must approach political arguments with a similar analytical lens.
Our ancestors referred to the intelligence of nature—or God—as ‘Supreme Wisdom’ (Perarivu). In that wisdom, nothing is a “useless nail.” You can simply Google to find out how a goat’s beard serves a purpose in nature. However, Googling to see if a state needs a Governor might not be the right approach. In a landscape where state politics has become synonymous with secessionist rhetoric, many false narratives are being systematically circulated among the people.
Think about it: On one hand, they hail Dr. Ambedkar as a legal genius, but on the other, they create counter-narratives that mock the very Constitution he drafted, thereby indirectly insulting his genius. If we start accepting the “No Governor needed” narrative pushed by mushrooming parties and those who have grown solely by preaching secession, what respect are we truly showing to a genius like Ambedkar? Once the slogan “Governor not needed” takes root in our minds, every action of the Governor tastes bitter to us. What is happening here is that politicians are transmitting their own bitterness to the public.
The debate over whether a state needs a Governor was concluded during the drafting of the Constitution itself. The committee that deliberated on this consisted of individuals far superior in intellect, education, and national spirit than the crowds currently spewing hatred. They analyzed the pros and cons from every possible angle.
Why create a position and vest it with nominal powers when the executive power lies with the Chief Minister? This arrangement exists to provide legal and constitutional legitimacy to state actions. In the eyes of the judiciary, a government order cannot merely be a letter written by a Minister. Article 166 of the Constitution is the mechanism that makes the Constitution responsible for every decision taken by elected ministers.
According to this Article, all executive actions of a state must be expressed to be taken “By order and in the name of the Governor.” This provides the “Constitutional Authority” stamp to that action. Consider this: A party brings a law or a government order and subsequently loses an election. If that order is challenged in court, who is responsible—the current government or the individuals who were previously in power? To resolve this, and to ensure that no official or minister acts personally but within the framework of the Constitution, the Governor is vested with this formal authority.
Is this his only job? No. Another objective behind the creation of this office was the realization that if secessionist forces come to power, they might adopt anti-national administrative methods. The Governor is intended to be the vital link between the Union and the State. Furthermore, appointing someone from outside the state as Governor ensures they act as an impartial referee, beyond local party politics.
In the Indian constitutional framework, the Parliament is supreme; its members are also elected by the people. The Parliament, representing the people of all states, has the power to alter state boundaries or create new states. Here, the Nation is primary. The State Assembly is a tier below the Parliament in the administrative hierarchy. In this context, the Governor’s office is an administrative setup to ensure a state does not unilaterally adopt secessionist tendencies against the Constitution.
Furthermore, if you become a Chief Minister and, with power and the police force in your hands, you refuse to step down, who controls you? The offices of the Governor and the President exist to ensure that check. According to our Constitution, elected representatives elect the President, who in turn appoints the Governor. It is the power given by the Constitution to our representatives that allows them to choose the President, who then chooses the Governor.
Another necessity: In situations like those seen in Bangladesh or Nepal, where an elected government is toppled by protesters or collapses due to political reasons, a constitutional office is required to keep the state machinery running. You often hear the phrase “Our ancestors were not fools.” I say: The framers of our Constitution were certainly not fools.
Politicians here are trying to make us view the Tamil Nadu Governor’s actions through the lens of party politics. We need not paint his actions with political colors. As an impartial referee and a link between Parliament and the Assembly, the Governor has the authority under Article 167 to seek explanations from the Chief Minister. The Governor is there to ensure the government functions according to the Constitution.
Regarding Tamil Nadu, the Governor asks to modify speeches that serve as party advertisements. This is within his authority. Because no one has done this before, it seems strange to us. No Governor’s address should refer to a “Dravidian Model Government” or an “Aryan Model Government”; it should be “My (Governor’s) Government” or “The State Government.” If he asks for a change, and it is ignored, he is right to intervene.
He points out that it is wrong to portray Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) as actual investments in the official speech. He highlights the absence of core issues the government needs to focus on. This is exactly the Governor’s job. He does not accept a government speech that is as hollow as the foam in a shampoo advertisement. A Governor should be exactly like this. We need not argue about what happens in other states; we must understand that here, the Governor is using his office correctly within the constitutional framework.
The Governor is the leash that ensures the government walks the path of the Constitution. He too cannot act beyond the Constitution. Before labeling his actions as political, we must analyze if they violate the Constitution. If they do, we can approach the courts. In such challenges, the courts have ultimately shown that the Constitution supports the Governor’s actions.
Notably, the recent clarification by the 5-judge Constitutional Bench (Nov 20, 2025) regarding the President’s reference confirms that the Governor has the discretionary power to withhold assent or seek corrections. If a Governor knows that a document contains “Deceiving Information,” his constitutional oath prevents him from reading it blindly under the guise of “tradition.” He cannot be forced to read a flawed document.
Here, secessionists call others secessionists. They claim “This is not a nation, but a subcontinent.” Australia is also a continent; would they say it isn’t a nation? Every modern nation once consisted of small kingdoms; can we call them all separate countries now? Those who try to divide a vast population united by national culture by claiming “Tamils are not Hindus” are the ones practicing religious and ethnic division. Those who once burnt the Constitution now praise Ambedkar on one hand while spreading anti-Indian hatred on the other. We must not lend an ear to such politically motivated views.
Take the “National Anthem” controversy. The Governor asks for the National Anthem to be played both before and after his address, as is the practice in Parliament. He isn’t asking to play bhajans for political leaders. It appears he is trying to advance a uniform national practice. People cite “State Tradition.” What was the tradition before 1991? He never said the Tamil Thai Vazhthu should not be played. In an Assembly functioning under the Indian Constitution, what is the problem with playing the National Anthem at the start and end? Is refusing this not a mindset of hatred? Is it not a “blind belief” to refuse a small improvement in a 1991 tradition while claiming to be rationalists?
If you are dissatisfied with the Governor’s actions, open the Constitution and think about which part he is violating. If your understanding is correct, approach the court. Otherwise, do not support anti-national sentiments and do not join the ranks of secessionists under the guise of opposing them.