In Tamil Nadu, governor overstepped bounds of constitutional morality
The recent political developments in Tamil Nadu involving the refusal/delay by Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar to invite Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) leader Vijay to form the government after the 2026 Assembly election have revived a major constitutional debate regarding the discretionary powers of Governors in a hung Assembly.
Context
In the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections, TVK emerged as the single largest party but fell short of the majority mark in the 234-member Assembly. Governor Arlekar reportedly asked TVK to produce support from 118 MLAs before inviting it to form the government. Critics argued that this violated established constitutional conventions and democratic morality.
The controversy is not merely political; it concerns:
- Federalism,
- Constitutional morality,
- Role of Governors,
- Democratic mandate,
- Floor test principle.
Constitutional Position of the Governor
Relevant Constitutional Provisions
- Article 163: Governor acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in limited discretionary situations.
- Article 164: Chief Minister is appointed by the Governor.
- Article 174: Governor summons the Assembly.
In a hung Assembly, the Constitution does not explicitly prescribe whom the Governor should invite first. Hence, conventions and Supreme Court judgments become crucial.
What is Constitutional Morality?
Constitutional morality means:
- Respecting democratic principles,
- Acting within constitutional limits,
- Upholding representative government,
- Avoiding partisan behaviour.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar viewed constitutional morality as adherence to the spirit of the Constitution rather than mere textual legality.
Thus, even if discretion exists, it must be exercised:
- neutrally,
- transparently,
- democratically.
Why Critics Say the Governor Overstepped
1. Ignoring the Single Largest Party Convention
Traditionally, the Governor first invites:
- Pre-poll alliance with majority,
- Single largest party,
- Post-poll coalition.
TVK, being the single largest party, arguably deserved the first opportunity to prove majority on the Assembly floor.
2. Governor Cannot Subjectively Determine Majority
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that majority should be tested on the floor of the House, not in Raj Bhavan.
Key Judgments
S.R. Bommai Case (1994)
- Floor test is the only constitutional method to test majority.
Rameshwar Prasad Case (2006)
- Governors cannot act on political assumptions.
Shivraj Singh Chouhan v. Speaker (2020)
- Floor test is essential in cases of doubt.
Thus, critics argue the Governor acted beyond constitutional convention by demanding prior proof of majority.
3. Threat to Federalism
Governors are centrally appointed constitutional heads. Opposition parties often accuse Governors of acting as agents of the Union government.
Tamil Nadu has witnessed repeated Governor-government conflicts in recent years over:
- Bills,
- Assembly speeches,
- Ministerial appointments,
- University appointments.
The present controversy strengthens concerns regarding “central interference in State autonomy.”
Arguments Supporting the Governor
Some constitutional experts defend the Governor’s position.
Their Arguments
Need for Stable Government
The Governor must ensure:
- stability,
- numerical viability,
- prevention of horse-trading.
No Automatic Right
The Constitution nowhere mandates that the single largest party must always be invited first.
Discretion Exists
In a hung Assembly, the Governor may seek credible evidence of support.
Broader Issues Highlighted
1. Ambiguity in Governor’s Discretion: The Constitution leaves room for interpretation.
2. Politicisation of Raj Bhavan: Frequent conflicts weaken institutional trust.
3. Weak Constitutional Conventions: India relies heavily on conventions rather than codified procedures.
4. Judicialisation of Politics: Political disputes increasingly reach courts.
Sarkaria and Punchhi Commission Recommendations
Both commissions recommended:
- Governor should be politically neutral,
- Floor test should determine majority,
- Discretion must be minimal,
- Constitutional conventions should be respected.
The Sarkaria Commission suggested preference order in hung Assemblies:
- Pre-poll alliance,
- Largest single party with support,
- Post-poll coalition.
Way Forward
- Codify Government Formation Guidelines
Clear constitutional or statutory norms are needed.
Any doubt regarding majority should be settled within 48–72 hours on the Assembly floor.
- Depoliticise Governor’s Office
Appointment process may involve consultation with the Chief Minister.
- Strengthen Cooperative Federalism
Raj Bhavan should act as a constitutional bridge, not a political battleground.
Supreme Court may frame uniform principles for hung Assemblies.
Conclusion
The Tamil Nadu controversy involving TVK and the Governor reflects the continuing tension between constitutional text and constitutional morality. While Governors possess limited discretion during government formation, democratic legitimacy ultimately flows from the elected Assembly. The essence of parliamentary democracy is that majority must be tested on the House floor, not determined subjectively by constitutional authorities. Respect for conventions, neutrality of Governors, and adherence to federal principles are essential for preserving India’s constitutional democracy.
Download Pdf
