Governor’s Role in Hung Assemblies and Constitutional Importance of Floor Tests

Context

The Governor’s role in government formation has come under renewed debate after the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections, where the Governor delayed inviting the single largest party to form the government and sought written proof of majority support before administering the oath of office.

The controversy has revived discussions on constitutional conventions, discretionary powers of Governors and the role of floor tests in parliamentary democracy.

Constitutional Position of the Governor

1. Under Article 164, the Governor appoints the Chief Minister. However, the Constitution does not prescribe a fixed procedure for government formation when no party secures a clear majority in the Legislative Assembly.
2. In such situations, the Governor is expected to act as a neutral constitutional authority and ensure the formation of a stable government while upholding democratic legitimacy and constitutional morality.

Government Formation in a Hung Assembly

1. When no party obtains a majority, the Governor must explore all reasonable possibilities for forming a government by consulting political parties, alliances and independent legislators.
2. The Sarkaria Commission recommended the following order of preference:
3. Pre-poll alliance with majority support
4. Single largest party capable of securing majority support
5. Post-poll alliance commanding majority in the House
6. The Supreme Court has recognised that post-poll coalitions are constitutionally valid if they enjoy the confidence of the Legislative Assembly.
7. Although parties may be given reasonable time to demonstrate support, unnecessary delays can create political uncertainty and encourage defections and horse-trading.
8. If no stable government can be formed, the Governor may:
9. recommend dissolution of the Assembly under Article 174(2)(b), or
10. advise imposition of President’s Rule under Article 356 as a constitutional last resort.

Floor Test and Judicial Position

1. The Supreme Court has consistently treated the floor test as the most objective and transparent method for determining majority support in the Assembly.
2. The Court has repeatedly held that majority support must be tested on the floor of the House rather than through the Governor’s personal assessment.
3. Important judicial interventions related to government formation and floor tests are:
4. R. Bommai Case (1994): The Court held that majority support should ordinarily be tested on the Assembly floor.
5. Rameshwar Prasad Case (2006): The Court ruled that Assembly dissolution cannot be based on speculative political assumptions.
6. Goa Political Crisis (2017): The Supreme Court ordered an immediate floor test to establish majority support quickly.
7. Karnataka Political Crisis (2018): The Court reduced the time for proving majority and directed a transparent floor test.

Concerns Regarding Governor’s Discretion

1. Delay in inviting parties to form the government can create political uncertainty and weaken the electoral mandate.
2. Excessive dependence on the Governor’s personal judgment may lead to arbitrary exercise of discretionary powers.
3. Partisan conduct by Governors can undermine constitutional neutrality and cooperative federalism.
4. Delay in conducting floor tests may encourage defections and political manipulation.
5. Misuse of Article 356 can disturb Centre–State relations and democratic governance.

Way Forward

1. Governors should adhere strictly to constitutional conventions and political neutrality.
2. Majority claims should be verified through an early floor test within a fixed timeframe.
3. Recommendations of the Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions should be implemented effectively.
4. Clear guidelines should be evolved for government formation in hung Assemblies.

Conclusion

The Governor occupies an important constitutional position in ensuring stable government formation in States. However, discretionary powers must function within the framework of constitutional morality, democratic accountability and cooperative federalism.

The Supreme Court’s emphasis on floor tests reinforces the principle that democratic legitimacy ultimately rests on the confidence of the Legislative Assembly.