Governor’s Role in the Government Formation

UPSC Syllabus: Gs Paper 2- Indian Polity

Introduction

The Governor plays an important constitutional role in government formation after Assembly elections. This role becomes sensitive when no party secures a clear majority. The Tamil Nadu Assembly elections of 2026 again raised debates over the Governor’s discretionary powers and the process of inviting parties to form the government. The elections also renewed discussions on the constitutional principle that majority support must be tested on the floor of the House.

Constitutional Provisions and Conventions

Appointment of Chief Minister: Article 164(1) states that the Governor appoints the Chief Minister, while other ministers are appointed on the advice of the Chief Minister. When one party gets a clear majority, the Governor invites its leader to form the government.

Governor’s Discretion in Hung Assembly: If no party secures majority support, the Governor uses discretionary powers to appoint the Chief Minister. The Constitution does not provide fixed criteria for this situation.

Commission Recommendations: The Sarkaria Commission (1987), Venkatachaliah Commission (2002), and Punchhi Commission (2010) suggested an order of preference for government formation. Priority should go to a pre-poll alliance with majority, followed by the single largest party with support, then post-poll coalitions.

Floor Test: Parliamentary democracy does not require a Chief Minister-designate to prove majority through signed letters before taking oath. The floor of the House remains the proper constitutional forum for testing majority support.

Purpose of Discretionary Powers: The Governor’s discretion exists to ensure the formation of a stable government that can enjoy majority support in the Assembly. The Governor is expected to function as an impartial constitutional authority.

Issues in the Governor’s Discretionary Powers

Uneven Standards: Governors have often followed different approaches in similar political situations. This has created uncertainty in constitutional practice regarding government formation in hung Assemblies.

Goa-Manipur Cases: In Goa and Manipur in 2017, Governors invited BJP-led post-poll alliances to form governments even though the Congress emerged as the single largest party. These governments later proved majority on the floor of the House.

Karnataka-Maharashtra Cases: In Karnataka in 2018, the Governor invited the BJP as the single largest party despite a post-poll alliance claiming majority support. In Maharashtra in 2019, a BJP-led coalition was sworn in despite uncertainty regarding majority numbers.

Tamil Nadu Issue: In Tamil Nadu, the Governor demanded signed letters from 118 MLAs before inviting TVK leader C. Joseph Vijay to form the government. Critics argued that the Constitution does not require proof of an absolute majority before swearing-in.

Early Floor Test: The direction to prove majority within a short period raised concerns regarding horse-trading and defections. Such actions may weaken democratic stability and encourage resort politics.

Partisanship Concerns: Different approaches adopted in different States raised concerns regarding the impartiality of Governors. This strengthened criticism that Governors sometimes function more in line with the Union government rather than as neutral constitutional heads of States.

Minority Governments and Parliamentary Practice

Past Examples: Minority governments have existed many times in India’s parliamentary system. Atal Bihari Vajpayee in 1996, P.V. Narasimha Rao, Deve Gowda, I.K. Gujral, and Manmohan Singh led governments dependent on outside support.

Parliamentary Convention: Parliamentary practice recognises minority governments as constitutionally valid arrangements. Such governments continue in office as long as they retain the confidence of the House.

No-Confidence Principle: Article 164(2) supports the principle of collective responsibility to the Assembly. A government remains in office until it loses majority support through a no-confidence motion on the floor of the House.

Judicial Interpretation and Constitutional Principles

Bommai Judgment: In S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court held that majority support must be tested on the floor of the House. The Court treated the Assembly as the proper constitutional forum for deciding majority.

Rameshwar Prasad: In the Rameshwar Prasad case (2006), the Supreme Court again supported floor testing instead of subjective political assessments outside the Assembly.

Karnataka Ruling: During the Karnataka political crisis of 2018, the Governor gave 15 days for majority testing. The Supreme Court reduced this period to one day after observing that long delays could encourage engineered defections and political manipulation.

Limits on Discretion: Judicial pronouncements repeatedly emphasised that the Governor’s role is to identify the person most likely to command confidence in the Assembly. The Governor is not expected to impose conditions beyond constitutional requirements.

Need for Clarity: Different judicial interpretations in various cases have resulted in inconsistent application of principles relating to gubernatorial discretion. This strengthened the demand for clearer constitutional norms and conventions.

Way Forward

Commission Recommendations: Governors should follow the order of preference suggested by the Sarkaria Commission, Venkatachaliah Commission, and Punchhi Commission while inviting parties to form governments. This can bring consistency and reduce political controversies in hung Assemblies.

Codification of Governor’s Discretionary Powers: The Justice Kurian Joseph Committee recommended adding a new constitutional schedule to define the Governor’s discretionary powers. This can provide a clear constitutional basis for such decisions.

Strengthening the Floor Test Principle: Majority support should be tested only on the floor of the House through confidence or no-confidence motions. Pre-swearing demands for proof of majority should be avoided.

Respecting Parliamentary Conventions: Newly formed governments should be allowed to prove their majority in the normal course of Assembly proceedings. Unnecessary deadlines for confidence votes may encourage horse-trading and defections.

Need for Impartial Conduct: Governors must exercise discretionary powers in a bona fide and neutral manner. Constitutional morality and respect for the voter’s mandate should guide the process of government formation.

Conclusion

The Governor’s role in government formation is important for parliamentary democracy and federal balance. However, inconsistent use of discretionary powers has repeatedly created constitutional controversies in hung Assemblies. The floor of the House must remain the final test of majority support. Clear constitutional conventions, impartial conduct by Governors, and respect for democratic mandate are necessary to ensure stable, accountable, and constitutionally consistent government formation in the States.

Question for practice:

Discuss the constitutional role of the Governor in government formation during a hung Assembly and the controversies related to the use of discretionary powers.

Source: The Hindu