Tamil Nadu’s legislative session opened under a constitutional cloud on Tuesday after Governor RN Ravi chose not to attend the customary address to the Assembly, escalating a long-simmering dispute with the elected government over protocol, federal norms and the role of the Governor in a state legislature.The absence marked a departure from convention, where the Governor formally addresses the Assembly at the start of a session, outlining the government’s priorities. Raj Bhavan officials indicated that the decision followed the Governor reiterating his position that both the national anthem and the state anthem should be played together at the beginning of the Assembly proceedings, a view not accepted by the state government.
Officials in the Assembly secretariat proceeded with the session without the Governor’s address, adopting the standard agenda in his absence. The Speaker informed members that the House would continue its business as scheduled, while treasury benches accused the Governor of breaching constitutional convention by refusing to discharge a formal duty.
The dispute over protocol has been building for months, reflecting deeper strains between Raj Bhavan and the state government led by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam. At the centre is the interpretation of ceremonial practices in the Assembly and whether the Governor can insist on changes to long-established procedures. The state anthem has traditionally been played at the end of Assembly sittings, while the national anthem is reserved for specific occasions, in line with established practice across several states.
Government sources argued that the Governor’s insistence amounted to an overreach into legislative procedure, which falls within the Assembly’s domain. They maintained that respect for the national anthem was never in question and that protocol had been followed consistently over decades. Senior ministers described the Governor’s absence as an affront to the Assembly’s dignity and to the mandate of the electorate.
From Raj Bhavan’s perspective, aides said the Governor believed the national anthem should be accorded primacy at the commencement of proceedings and that his position was rooted in constitutional values. They stressed that his decision not to attend was a matter of principle rather than politics, though they stopped short of explaining why the disagreement could not be addressed within the House.
Legal experts noted that while the Constitution mandates the Governor to address the Assembly at the start of a session, the content of the address is prepared by the elected government, and the occasion is largely ceremonial. Refusal to attend, they said, risks setting an awkward precedent in centre–state relations, particularly in states governed by parties opposed to the Union government.
Opposition parties in the Assembly offered a mixed response. Some criticised the Governor for politicising a ceremonial role, while others urged the state government to seek an institutional resolution rather than escalating the standoff on the floor of the House. A few members called for clarity from the Union government on whether it endorsed the Governor’s interpretation of protocol.
Outside the legislature, constitutional scholars pointed to a broader pattern of friction between Governors and elected governments in several states. Disputes over assent to Bills, delays in convening sessions and disagreements over protocol have increasingly tested the limits of the Governor’s discretionary powers. In Tamil Nadu, the relationship has been particularly fraught, with earlier disagreements over university appointments and legislation passed by the Assembly.
Public reaction to the Governor’s absence was divided. Supporters of the state government viewed the move as unnecessary confrontation, while some civic groups argued that the debate over anthems should not overshadow pressing legislative business, including debates on the budget, social welfare schemes and economic growth.
Within the Assembly, members pressed ahead with discussions, though the shadow of the Governor’s decision loomed large. Several speakers referenced the episode as emblematic of what they described as an erosion of cooperative federalism, urging restraint and dialogue to restore institutional balance.