150+
mock exams
17,986
tests completed
2,30,795
questions answered
Following a hung assembly in the 2026 Tamil Nadu elections, the Governor delayed swearing in the leader of the single largest party, demanding physical letters of support. This has reignited debates over the Governor's discretionary powers under in government formation and the primacy of the **floor test** as the objective measure of majority. The situation underscores the tension between constitutional conventions and the subjective actions of Governors in state politics.
The Constitution does not explicitly outline a procedure for the Governor when no party secures a clear majority. However, the Sarkaria Commission established a hierarchy of preferences that has become a constitutional convention, later endorsed by the Supreme Court. The order dictates inviting the pre-poll alliance first, followed by the single largest party claiming majority support, and then a post-poll alliance. The Supreme Court in the landmark S.R. Bommai case emphasized that a minority government can exist as long as it enjoys the confidence of the House, asserting that the majority must be tested on the floor of the Assembly, not in the Raj Bhavan. The Governor's primary duty is to ensure a stable government and avoid invoking Article 356 (President's Rule) unless all constitutional machinery has genuinely failed. UPSC frequently tests the discretionary powers of the Governor, particularly the distinction between constitutional discretion and situational discretion, making this sequence of government formation crucial for Prelims and Mains.
The controversy highlights the persistent issue of gubernatorial discretion being perceived as politically motivated, a concern repeatedly raised in Indian federalism. Governors demanding physical letters of support instead of relying on a floor test introduces subjective satisfaction into a process that should ideally be objective and transparent. The Supreme Court has consistently intervened in such scenarios (e.g., Goa in 2017, Karnataka in 2018), often reducing the time given to prove majority to prevent horse-trading (the buying or selling of political support) and ordering immediate floor tests, sometimes under live camera. This judicial activism aims to maintain the integrity of the electoral mandate and limit arbitrary executive action. For UPSC, analyzing the role of the Governor as an agent of the Centre versus the constitutional head of the State is a recurring theme in GS2, where instances of alleged misuse of power are critical case studies.
The legal framework surrounding government formation heavily relies on judicial precedents interpreting constitutional provisions. While Article 164 gives the Governor the power to appoint the Chief Minister, the Supreme Court has clarified that this power is not absolute. In cases like B.R. Kapur v. State of T.N. and Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India, the Court held that the Governor cannot leave the state in political limbo and possesses the power to dissolve the assembly under Article 174(2)(b) if government formation is impossible, even before its first meeting. The filing of a writ petition in the Supreme Court regarding the Tamil Nadu situation demonstrates the increasing reliance on the judiciary to adjudicate political deadlocks and enforce constitutional morality over partisan interests. Aspirants must be familiar with these key judgments as they form the bedrock of India's current constitutional jurisprudence on state executive powers.