The Governor’s Discretion in a Hung Assembly
The recent hypothetical political developments in Tamil Nadu have revived debates regarding:
- Governor’s discretionary powers
- Government formation in a hung Assembly
- Constitutional morality
- Federalism
- Judicial interpretation
This issue is highly relevant for:
- GS Paper 2 – Constitution, Centre-State Relations, Federalism
- Essay and Interview preparation
Background of the Issue
In the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections of 2026:
| Party | Seats Won |
|---|---|
| Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) | 108 |
| DMK | 59 |
| AIADMK | 47 |
Assembly strength:
234 seats
Majority mark:
118 seats
Since TVK fell short of a majority, it secured support from smaller parties and submitted letters of support from 120 MLAs to the Governor.
Subsequently:
- C. Joseph Vijay was invited to form the government
- He was sworn in as Chief Minister
The issue triggered wider constitutional discussions regarding the Governor’s role in a hung Assembly.
Constitutional Provisions
Article 164(1)
Provides that:
- The Chief Minister shall be appointed by the Governor.
- Other ministers are appointed on the advice of the Chief Minister.
Situation When One Party Has Majority
If a party wins clear majority:
- Governor invites the leader of that party automatically.
There is:
- No discretion involved.
Situation in a Hung Assembly
A hung Assembly occurs when:
No party secures absolute majority.
In such cases:
- The Governor exercises discretionary powers to appoint the Chief Minister.
However:
The Constitution does not specify exact criteria.
This has led to political controversies and inconsistent practices.
Recommendations of Important Commissions
Sarkaria Commission (1987)
Recommended order of preference:
- Pre-poll alliance with majority
- Single largest party with support of others
- Post-poll coalition where all partners join government
- Post-poll alliance with outside support
Punchhi Commission (2010)
Supported similar principles and stressed:
- Neutrality of Governors
- Constitutional propriety
Major Constitutional Issues
1. Inconsistent Conduct of Governors
Governors have often acted differently in similar situations.
Examples:
| State | Governor’s Action |
|---|---|
| Goa (2017) | BJP post-poll alliance invited despite Congress being largest party |
| Manipur (2017) | BJP alliance preferred over Congress |
| Karnataka (2018) | BJP invited as largest party |
| Maharashtra (2019) | BJP-led coalition sworn in amid uncertainty |
This inconsistency raises concerns about:
- Political bias
- Selective use of discretion
2. Governors as “Agents of the Centre”
Critics argue Governors sometimes:
- Act politically
- Favour ruling party at the Centre
- Undermine federalism
instead of functioning as neutral constitutional authorities.
3. Lack of Codified Rules
The Constitution leaves large discretionary space.
This results in:
- Conflicting interpretations
- Constitutional uncertainty
- Frequent litigation
Importance of Floor Test
The Supreme Court has repeatedly clarified:
Majority must be tested on the floor of the House.
Not:
- In Raj Bhavan
- Through letters alone
- Through subjective assessment
Key Supreme Court Judgments
S. R. Bommai Case
Held:
- Floor test is the only constitutionally valid method to determine majority.
This strengthened:
- Parliamentary democracy
- Federalism
Rameshwar Prasad Case
Reaffirmed:
- Majority should be tested in the Assembly.
Issue of “118 Majority”
The Governor’s office argued that:
- TVK needed support of 118 MLAs.
However:
Constitutional majority depends on “members present and voting.”
Thus:
- Abstentions reduce effective majority requirement.
- Majority becomes 111, not 118.
Therefore:
- The floor test remains decisive.
Justice Kurian Joseph Committee Recommendation
The recent committee on Union-State relations recommended:
A new constitutional schedule
to:
- Codify discretionary powers of Governors
- Ensure consistency
- Reduce misuse
This could provide:
- Clear legal framework
- Constitutional certainty
Broader Constitutional Principles
1. Federalism
Governors must respect:
- State autonomy
- Democratic mandate
2. Constitutional Morality
Public offices should function:
- Transparently
- Neutrally
- In good faith
3. Parliamentary Democracy
Government legitimacy depends on:
- Confidence of elected House
not merely gubernatorial discretion.
Way Forward
1. Codification of Rules
Need for:
- Uniform guidelines for hung Assemblies
2. Judicial Clarity
Supreme Court should issue:
- Clear binding principles on government formation.
3. Neutral Governors
Governors must act:
- Impartially
- Constitutionally
- Beyond party politics
4. Mandatory Floor Test
Majority disputes should always be resolved:
On the floor of the Assembly.
Conclusion
The Tamil Nadu episode highlights continuing tensions between:
- Constitutional conventions
- Political practice
- Federalism
- Democratic accountability
The Governor’s discretionary powers are intended to ensure stable governance, not political advantage. In a parliamentary democracy, the ultimate test of legitimacy lies in:
The confidence of the elected House.
Strengthening constitutional conventions and codifying gubernatorial discretion are essential to preserve democratic integrity and cooperative federalism in India.
UPSC Mains Practice Question
“The discretionary powers of Governors in hung Assemblies have often generated constitutional controversies.” Discuss with reference to judicial pronouncements and commission recommendations.
No comments:
Post a Comment