The weaponisation of governors against governments other than those led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has once again revived the debate on the role and definition of this much-abused institution. While some have suggested doing away with the governor’s address to the legislature, others have sought abolition of the post itself or a provision for impeachment.The latest confrontation was triggered when governors in non-BJP states refused to read out the address prepared by the state Cabinet, skipping portions of the text. Two governors – of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka – even walked out of the House mid-session and later issued statements from Lok (Raj) Bhavan justifying their action.Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, among the most vocal advocates of scrapping the governor’s address, has repeatedly said he would seek the necessary constitutional amendments. He has said the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) alliance would never bow to the BJP government’s dictates.In Kerala, Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, meanwhile, read out the omitted portions of the address himself and got the full text approved by the House.Governor R.N. Ravi and the DMK government have been at loggerheads since his appointment in May 2021. He delivered the customary address in 2022 but from 2023 onwards began omitting portions and adding comments of his own. Ravi walked out without reading the speech in 2024 and 2025.Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah strongly condemned the governor’s actions too, calling them a violation of the constitution. He alleged that the governor had acted as a puppet of the Union government, and that the speech read out was prepared in Delhi.The Karnataka governor initially declined to address the joint session but later changed his plan. He eventually read out just three lines and left the House. The Karnataka government also considered moving a censure motion against him for violating his constitutional duties.Even a BJP MLA in Karnataka, Suresh Kumar, joined the call to revisit the practice of governors addressing legislatures, calling it a colonial hangover whose importance, purpose and sanctity had vanished.The DMK youth wing led by Udayanidhi Stalin demanded abolition of the post of governor, passing a resolution to that effect at a conference. Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK) leader Vaiko submitted a memorandum to the President seeking the removal of R.N. Ravi as Tamil Nadu governor.Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, as early as 2016, called for the abolition of the governor’s post, arguing it was incompatible with a federal democratic structure. He also sought transparency in appointments.The Communist Party of India has similarly advocated abolition of the post. Among senior figures backing the demand are Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Trinamool Congress Member of Parliament Saugata Roy and former bureaucrat Madhav Godbole.Gubernatorial activism has also produced other controversies. In Kerala, the Assembly Speaker alleged that a highly confidential letter sent by the governor was leaked to sections of the media before it could reach him.In West Bengal, two newly elected Members of the Legislative Assembly were administered the oath by the Speaker after refusing to go to Raj Bhavan. The governor wrote to the President accusing the Speaker of violating constitutional provisions.Also read: Abolishing Governor’s Post Isn’t a Good Idea. What’s Needed is a RethinkConstituent Assembly debates indicate that governors were meant to exercise minimal discretion. The head of the Assembly and first law minister, Dr B.R. Ambedkar, stressed that they should not act as agents of the Union or interfere with elected governments. The Assembly rejected reviving the 1935 model that had given governors sweeping powers.India follows the Westminster model of government, but unlike Indian governors today, the British monarch has never departed from the speech prepared by the government. Former President R. Venkataraman described the governor’s address as a meaningless formality, suggesting that “My government” in the speech be replaced with “The government”.Legal experts have also raised questions on whether rejection of the governor’s address could be treated as a no-confidence motion against the chief minister.The Supreme Court has described governors as philosophers, friends and guides. A similar view was expressed by former President Ram Nath Kovind.Critics argue that governors today wield power beyond that of British governor-generals, who did not walk out of legislatures or publicly spar with elected governments. Some, such as Warren Hastings, were even impeached.The Sarkaria Commission in 1988 recommended a mechanism for impeaching errant governors – a proposal that successive Union governments have ignored. Instead, there have been suggestions to give governors greater executive roles, including coordinating the work of central agencies.Also read: The Recent Supreme Court Opinion Strengthens Raj Bhavans, So Know Your GovernorsRecent controversies have added to criticism. A Raj Bhavan staffer in Odisha was allegedly assaulted by the governor’s son due to a dispute over not sending a luxury car to him. The official’s wife Sayoj said the police had declined to take action even after filing a formal complaint. “[My] husband was forcefully dragged to the culprits room and assaulted,” she told media. The staffer was later transferred.The same governor earlier faced criticism for campaigning for his daughter-in-law. In West Bengal, a contractual staffer accused Governor C.V. Ananda Bose of sexual harassment. He denied the allegation, but constitutional immunity shields governors from criminal proceedings while in office.Governors have also been criticised for withholding assent to bills passed by legislatures, a practice described as a ‘pocket veto’. The Supreme Court has ruled that bills cannot be kept pending indefinitely.Judicial intervention was also required when governors began interfering in appointments in state universities. The Supreme Court stepped in state by state, after which an uneasy calm returned and has since prevailed in state universities.P. Raman is a veteran journalist and political commentator.In an age of fractured mandates, personality cults and transactional alliances, P. Raman brings clarity to India’s shifting political equations. With Realpolitik, the veteran journalist peers beneath the slogans and spin to reveal the power plays, spectacle, crises and insecurities driving India’s politics.