Daijiworld Media Network – Thiruvananthapuram
Thiruvananthapuram, Jan 20: A controversy erupted in the Kerala Legislative Assembly on Tuesday over omissions and alterations made by Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar in his customary policy address, marking the commencement of the 16th session of the 15th Assembly, with the state government objecting strongly to the changes.
After the Governor concluded his address and left the House, Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan informed the Assembly that Arlekar had not read the beginning of paragraph 12 and the concluding part of paragraph 15 of the cabinet-approved speech.
One of the omitted portions stated that despite Kerala’s social and institutional achievements, the state continued to face severe fiscal stress due to a series of adverse actions by the Union government that undermine the constitutional principles of fiscal federalism. In the version read by the Governor, this was prefixed with the words “My government feels” and the reference to the Union government’s actions was replaced with the phrase “curtailment of advances”.
Another section that was completely omitted pertained to bills passed by state legislatures remaining pending for prolonged periods, and the state government approaching the Supreme Court on the issue, which has been referred to a Constitution Bench.
The Governor also altered a paragraph related to tax devolution, which originally stated that tax devolution and Finance Commission grants are constitutional entitlements of states and not acts of charity. In his address, Arlekar added “My government feels” and removed the words “acts of charity”.
Addressing the House, Chief Minister Vijayan asserted that the policy address approved by the state cabinet, printed and circulated among the members, must be treated as the official version. He said the Assembly should consider only this version as the authentic policy address, citing constitutional principles and established Assembly precedents.
Speaker A. N. Shamseer backed the Chief Minister’s stand, stating that avoiding or adding portions to the cabinet-approved address is not officially recognised, and that past precedents would apply in the present case as well.