Prior to relinquishing charge which preceded his appointment as Telangana governor, Shiv Pratap Shukla had recently joined the increasingly visible league of Governors in non-BJP ruled states—such as Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and West Bengal—where Raj Bhavans have found themselves in direct confrontation with elected Chief Ministers who allege tacit or tactical support from the Centre. The charge is not merely political; it is constitutional. Critics argue that such confrontations, if prolonged, risk weakening the roots of parliamentary democracy by unsettling the delicate balance between an unelected constitutional head and an elected executive. The latest episode in Himachal Pradesh now places the hill state squarely within this national pattern of friction.

The Budget Session Flashpoint;

On the opening day of the Budget Session on February 16, Ex-Governor, Shiv Pratap Shukla declined to read portions of the customary address to the House, triggering a sharp constitutional debate. Under Article 176 of the Constitution, the Governor is mandated to address the legislature at the commencement of the first session each year. Conventionally, the speech is drafted by the Council of Ministers and reflects the policy priorities of the elected government. By omitting parts of the prepared text—reportedly those critical of the Union Government’s decision to discontinue the Revenue Deficit Grant (RDG)—the Governor stepped into contested terrain. The question is not whether a Governor can disagree with the contents; the question is whether such disagreement permits alteration or omission in a speech constitutionally attributed to the elected executive.

The Challenge........

© Free Press Journal