Tamil Nadu Assembly: Governor Walks Out Amid National Anthem Dispute and Draft Speech Alterations

In a dramatic turn of events, Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi walked out of the State Assembly on January 6, 2025, following a contentious disagreement with the DMK-led government over procedural norms and the omission of the National Anthem after the Tamil state song, Tamil Thai Vaazhthu. The incident marks the latest flashpoint in the ongoing friction between the Governor and the state government.

The Prelude to the Walkout

Governor Ravi’s visit to the Assembly was in response to an invitation by Speaker M. Appavu to deliver the customary address for the first session of the year, as mandated by Article 176(1) of the Indian Constitution. However, the Governor reportedly objected to portions of the draft speech prepared by the state government. These sections included references to the state’s law-and-order situation and issues concerning Anna University. Citing inaccuracies, Governor Ravi requested their removal, stating he could provide intelligence reports to substantiate his concerns.

Despite these objections, the Assembly session commenced as per protocol. Governor Ravi arrived at 9:29 a.m. and was received by Chief Minister M.K. Stalin. The proceedings began with Tamil Thai Vaazhthu, but when the Governor’s request to follow it with the National Anthem was denied, he left the House without delivering his address.

Assembly Turmoil and Political Fallout

Speaker Appavu later clarified that the Governor’s constitutional role required him to read the address as prepared by the government, without omissions or additions. He further announced that the Governor’s remarks about House conventions would not be included in the official Assembly records.

The Governor’s walkout led to a series of protests within the Assembly. BJP members staged a walkout, while AIADMK legislators protested against an alleged sexual assault case at Anna University. Marshals were deployed to manage disruptions as PMK and BJP members joined the walkout, leaving the Assembly in disarray.

This incident is the second consecutive year where Governor Ravi has exited the Assembly without completing his address. In 2023, he abruptly left after deviating from the prepared text, while in 2024, he shortened his speech and delivered parts extemporaneously.

Governor’s Statement and DMK’s Response

Following the walkout, Raj Bhavan issued a statement expressing the Governor’s deep anguish over the perceived disrespect to the National Anthem. "Respecting the National Anthem is a fundamental duty enshrined in our Constitution. The refusal to play it in the Assembly was a grave insult," the statement read. A subsequent social media post further criticized the DMK government, accusing it of undermining constitutional norms.

The DMK and its allies dismissed the Governor’s actions as politically motivated. Critics argued that the DMK successfully diverted attention from pressing issues, including the Anna University sexual assault case, using the controversy to shift the narrative.

A Widening Rift

The confrontation between Governor Ravi and the DMK government reflects a broader pattern of discord. The Governor has previously refused to assent to multiple Assembly bills, including one appointing the Chief Minister as Chancellor of universities. Additionally, his objection to excluding a UGC nominee from the Vice-Chancellor selection panel has fueled tensions.

The DMK government has repeatedly accused the Governor of overstepping his constitutional role, while the BJP and AIADMK have criticized the state government for undermining federal principles. Analysts warn that these ongoing disputes risk exacerbating Centre-State relations, undermining constitutional governance, and fostering unnecessary conflict.

The events in the Tamil Nadu Assembly highlight the fragile relationship between the state government and the constitutional head. The refusal to play the National Anthem, coupled with disagreements over the Governor’s address, underscores the growing politicization of constitutional conventions. As both sides continue to assert their positions, the larger question remains: can such disputes be resolved without further eroding public trust in democratic institutions?