The political atmosphere in Karnataka witnessed sharp turbulence on January 22, 2026, after Karnataka Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot walked out of the Assembly moments into his customary address to the joint session of the state legislature. The Governor read just two lines of the speech and abruptly concluded the address, triggering a major Governor vs Government Karnataka confrontation at the very start of the state’s Budget session.

The development unfolded at Vidhana Soudha in Bengaluru, where the Governor was scheduled to deliver the traditional address outlining the policies, priorities, and vision of the elected state government. Instead, his decision to refuse to read large portions of the Cabinet-approved speech has escalated tensions between Raj Bhavan and the Congress-led Siddaramaiah government, adding Karnataka to a growing list of non-BJP ruled states witnessing constitutional friction between Governors and elected governments.

According to official sources, Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot objected to specific paragraphs in the speech that referred to the proposed G RAM G Bill, a controversial legislation linked to restructuring the MGNREGA scheme. The Governor reportedly argued that these portions amounted to political messaging and government propaganda, particularly those making critical references to the central government, issues of fund devolution, and the alleged dilution of welfare schemes.

The Karnataka Assembly latest news confirms that as soon as the Governor completed two introductory lines, he closed the speech and exited the House. The move stunned legislators across party lines and immediately sparked uproar within the Assembly complex, with ruling party members accusing the Governor of breaching constitutional conventions.

The incident comes just a day after Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi walked out of the state Assembly without delivering his address, citing inaccuracies in the prepared text. Earlier, Kerala Governor Rajendra Viswanath Arlekar had also omitted certain portions of his speech, with Raj Bhavan later stating that its suggested modifications were ignored. Together, these developments point to a broader national pattern of friction between Governors and state governments, particularly in states ruled by opposition parties.

Before the dramatic walkout, Thaawarchand Gehlot arrived at Vidhana Soudha amid tight security, ending hours of political suspense over whether he would deliver the speech at all. He was formally received by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, Legislative Assembly Speaker U T Khader, Legislative Council Chairman Basavaraj Horatti, and Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister H K Patil, in keeping with established protocol.

However, the cordial optics failed to translate into consensus behind closed doors. A day earlier, a high-level delegation led by H K Patil, along with Advocate General K Shashi Kiran Shetty and Legal Advisor to the Chief Minister A S Ponna, had met the Governor in an attempt to resolve the impasse. Despite the meeting, the standoff continued, culminating in the Governor’s truncated address.

Reacting sharply, Chief Minister Siddaramaiah termed the Governor’s action a serious constitutional violation. Speaking to reporters, he said that the Governor is constitutionally bound to read the speech prepared and approved by the Cabinet. He stressed that Article 176 of the Indian Constitution mandates that the Governor shall address the joint sitting of the legislature at the commencement of every session, while Article 163 requires the Governor to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.

“Every new year the Governor has to address the joint session of the Assembly with a speech prepared by the Cabinet. This is a constitutional requirement,” Siddaramaiah said. “Today, instead of reading the speech prepared by the Cabinet, the Governor read the one he himself prepared. This violates Articles 176 and 163 of the Constitution of India. He has not discharged his duties as per the Constitution.”

The Chief Minister further stated that the government would protest against the attitude of the Governor and was actively examining whether or not to approach the Supreme Court. This marks a significant escalation, suggesting that the constitutional confrontation could soon enter the judicial arena.

Senior Congress leader and Karnataka Minister Priyank Kharge also launched a scathing attack, alleging political bias within the Governor’s office. Referring to the Karnataka Assembly’s special session on MGNREGA, Kharge questioned the Governor’s objections, saying the speech contained only factual statements.

“Who is violating Articles 176 and 163?” Kharge asked. “All we have stated are facts in our Governor’s speech. There is not a single lie there, still the Governor does not want to read it. Has the Governor’s office become the BJP office?”

Kharge also criticised the opposition BJP, accusing it of selectively invoking constitutional provisions. His remarks underline how the MGNREGA Karnataka dispute has become a flashpoint not only between the state and the Centre but also between constitutional offices within the state.

From the Governor’s perspective, sources in Raj Bhavan indicated that as many as 11 paragraphs in the government-prepared speech were objectionable. These paragraphs reportedly contained sharp criticism of the central government’s policies, references to the alleged “repeal” or dilution of MGNREGA, and concerns over inadequate fund devolution to states. The Governor is said to have sought deletion or modification of these sections, a request the government declined.

Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister H K Patil reiterated that the Governor’s address is not a personal document but a formal declaration of the elected government’s agenda. “The Governor’s address is nothing but the declaration of the government’s policies, programmes, and views,” he said. “Article 176(1) very specifically mandates that the speech prepared by the Cabinet is to be addressed by the Governor.”

Patil warned that cutting short or refusing to deliver the address amounts to a betrayal of the Constitution, adding that the government would consider all options if such actions continue. His remarks echo the growing sentiment within the Congress that constitutional offices are being used to politically pressure non-BJP governments.

The Karnataka Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot news has reignited a broader debate on the role of Governors in India’s federal structure. While Governors are expected to act as neutral constitutional heads, opposition parties have long accused the Centre of using Raj Bhavan to obstruct state governments through delays, objections, and discretionary interventions.

Political analysts note that the timing of the incident—at the start of the Budget session—adds to its gravity. The Governor’s address traditionally sets the tone for legislative proceedings, and any disruption at this stage can cast a shadow over the entire session. The walkout has already disrupted legislative business and heightened political polarisation within the state.

The opposition BJP, meanwhile, has defended the Governor’s stand, arguing that constitutional propriety must be maintained and that the Governor has the right to object to content he believes violates constitutional norms. However, Congress leaders counter that such objections should be raised privately, not through a public walkout that undermines legislative dignity.

The Top News Headlines in Karnataka have been dominated by this episode, with legal experts weighing in on whether the Governor’s action can be challenged in court. While the Constitution does not explicitly spell out remedies for such situations, past judicial pronouncements have emphasised that Governors must ordinarily act on the advice of elected governments, except in narrowly defined exceptional circumstances.

As Karnataka braces for possible legal and political fallout, the incident adds to a growing narrative of institutional strain within India’s federal democracy. Similar confrontations in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and other states suggest that the issue is not isolated but part of a wider pattern that may require judicial clarity or even constitutional reform.

In the immediate term, all eyes are on whether the Siddaramaiah-led Congress government will move the Supreme Court to seek clarity on the scope of the Governor’s discretion under Articles 176 and 163. Such a move could have far-reaching implications, not just for Karnataka, but for Centre-state relations across the country.

In conclusion, the episode where Karnataka Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot walks out of Assembly after reading two lines of speech marks a critical moment in the state’s political history. It underscores deepening tensions between constitutional authority and democratic mandate, raising fundamental questions about governance, accountability, and the balance of power in India’s federal system. As the situation unfolds, its impact is likely to resonate far beyond the walls of Vidhana Soudha.

Join our Telegram Channel for Latest News and Regular Updates.

Start your Mutual Fund Journey  by Opening Free Account in Asset Plus.

Start your Stock Market Journey and Apply in IPO by Opening Free Demat Account in Choice Broking FinX.