Governor’s address
Gubernatorial displeasure (Editorial page, “This is an ‘address’ of great constitutional importance”, January 17) within the contours of constitutional morality is always welcome.
After all, dissent and seeking executive accountability are the essence of a thriving parliamentary democracy. But it does not bode well if the displeasure is disproportionately overt and borders on being outright ‘guber-notorious’.
Nishat Bhatotia,
Manesar, Gurugram, Haryana
The Governor could have disagreed with the left out portions of his address and insisted on their deletion, but having approved the same, should have read them out, as pointed out in the article. When the Constitution mandates certain rules, a constitutional functionary should not have cast them to the wind. This particular incident has set a wrong precedent and should the Centre approve of Mr. Ravi’s conduct, will cause dissonance between the Centre and the State of Tamil Nadu. The wisdom of appointing Governors from other States with differing political ideologies has become questionable.
V. Lakshmanan,
Tirupur, Tamil Nadu
One wonders whether the writer has been objective. Are the members of the Tamil Nadu government, i.e. its leader and the Ministers paragons of virtue adhering to constitutional norms while the Governor alone is ‘at fault’? One is certain that the Governor has his advisers as well as legal luminaries to advise him regarding the nuances of the Constitution.
S. Umamahesweran,
Chennai
Now a protected plant
The Centre has done well to cast a safety net around the Neelakurinji (Strobilanthes kunthiana), the blue wonder which blooms once in 12 years (Inside pages, January 13). Future generations cannot be denied the experience of witnessing its glory. It is also an indicator of the state of the environment.
R. Sivakumar,
Chennai
