
Speaking to the media at the Assembly secretariat, Appavu expressed dissatisfaction with the Governor’s decision to exit the House without delivering the speech prepared by the state government. He emphasized that the Governor is constitutionally obliged to read out the speech under Article 176 of the Indian Constitution, a responsibility that he said the Governor appeared to be avoiding.
“The right to air views in the House is reserved solely for the 234 elected members,” said Appavu. He added that while the Governor is expected to deliver a speech prepared by the state government, it was inappropriate for him to exit without fulfilling this constitutional duty. Appavu reminded the Raj Bhavan of the long-standing tradition in Tamil Nadu, citing the example of a similar situation in 1995 when the TNLA adopted a resolution to recall former Governor Chenna Reddy. Despite the resolution, the Governor delivered his address in February 1996.
Clarifying that the practice of the Governor reading the speech prepared by the state government has been followed since the days of the Madras Presidency, Appavu stressed that the Governor must adhere to this tradition. He explained that the day the Governor delivers his address does not count as an official session of the Assembly, underlining the importance of the constitutional duty to read the prepared text.
Appavu also addressed the Governor’s recent comment regarding the national anthem, emphasizing that the Constitution does not specify a particular schedule for the Governor to deliver his address. He recalled the conduct of the Telangana Assembly, where the Governor’s address was omitted under similar circumstances, yet the Assembly continued functioning as usual. “The state and Assembly still remain,” Appavu remarked, adding that the TNLA will continue with its proceedings regardless of the Governor’s participation.
On the issue of the Governor’s refusal to read the speech, Appavu stated, “He cannot tell me that. The elected government and the cabinet decide and hand over the text to him.” He concluded that it was essential for the Governor to fulfill his constitutional duties, and called on the media to consider if it was fair for the Governor to continually act in violation of the Constitution.