5 times parties formed governments sans majority as Vijay's TVK scambles for numbers in Tamil Nadu

The 2026 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election produced a hung House, with Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) emerging as the single largest party with 108 se...

What Happened

The 2026 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election produced a hung House, with Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) emerging as the single largest party with 108 seats in the 234-member House — short of the majority mark of 118.
The Tamil Nadu Governor did not immediately invite TVK chief C. Joseph Vijay to form the government, and instead sought a demonstration of majority support before extending an invitation — a constitutionally contested stance.
A writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court arguing that the constitutional sequence established by judicial precedent is "invite → swear in → immediate floor test," and that the Governor cannot demand proof of majority as a pre-condition for extending the invitation to the single largest party.
With Congress extending support, TVK's tally reportedly reached ~113, leaving it 5 seats short of majority; post-poll negotiations with smaller parties and independents continued.
Separately in Puducherry, the NDA combine secured a clear majority (18/30 seats) with AINRC chief N. Rangasamy staking a claim to form the government through the Lieutenant Governor route (see separate article).

Static Topic Bridges

Article 164: Government Formation at the State Level

Article 164 of the Constitution governs the appointment of the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers in states. Article 164(1) provides that the Chief Minister shall be appointed by the Governor, and other Ministers shall be appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister. Article 164(2) specifies that the Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly of the State.

The Constitution does not explicitly define which person or party should be invited first when no party has a clear majority — this gap is filled by constitutional conventions, commission recommendations, and Supreme Court precedents.

Article 164(1): Governor appoints Chief Minister; the Article does not specify how to determine who commands majority confidence
Article 164(2): Collective responsibility — the CoM must retain the confidence of the House
Article 164(5): A Minister who is not a member of the legislature must become one within 6 months
Equivalent provision at Union level: Article 75 (appointment of Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, collectively responsible to Lok Sabha)
Constitutional gap: Who gets the first call in a hung assembly? Answer lies in conventions + judicial pronouncements

Connection to this news: The Tamil Nadu standoff highlights the gap in Article 164 — it does not specify the order of invitation in a hung assembly, creating space for gubernatorial discretion that courts have progressively restricted.

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): The Foundational Judgment

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) is the Supreme Court's landmark 9-judge Constitution Bench judgment on federalism, Article 356 (President's Rule), and the floor test. The case arose from the dismissal of the S.R. Bommai government in Karnataka in 1989 by invoking Article 356, without giving Bommai an opportunity to prove his majority on the floor of the House.

The Court held: (1) The floor of the House is the sole and exclusive forum to test majority — not the Governor's subjective satisfaction; (2) The Governor cannot bypass the legislature to determine majority support; (3) The imposition of President's Rule before a floor test is unconstitutional unless there are compelling circumstances making it impracticable; (4) Courts can judicially review the material on the basis of which President's Rule is imposed.

Case: S.R. Bommai v. Union of India; Year: 1994; Bench: 9-judge Constitution Bench
Key holding: Majority must be tested on the floor of the House — not before, and not in the Governor's Raj Bhavan
Impact: Drastically curtailed arbitrary imposition of President's Rule (Article 356); led to more conservative use of this provision post-1994
The judgment transformed a constitutional convention into a binding judicial rule
Article 356: President's Rule; can be imposed if the constitutional governance of a state cannot be carried on as per constitutional provisions — Bommai curtailed its misuse

Connection to this news: The Tamil Nadu Governor's demand that TVK demonstrate majority support before an invitation is issued runs directly against the Bommai principle that majority is to be tested on the floor of the House after the invitation is extended, not as a pre-condition.

Sarkaria Commission and Punchhi Commission: Government Formation Conventions

When no party wins an outright majority, constitutional conventions guide the Governor's choice of who to invite. Two major commissions — the Sarkaria Commission (1983–87) and the Punchhi Commission (2007–10) — both set up to examine Centre-State relations — codified the preferred order of invitation in a hung assembly.

Sarkaria Commission (1987) recommended the following order: 1. A pre-poll alliance or coalition that has won a majority 2. The single largest party that can demonstrate majority support 3. A post-election coalition with majority members willing to join government 4. The largest single party (even without confirmed majority) with parties willing to extend outside support

Punchhi Commission (2010) broadly endorsed this sequence, adding that the Governor must not be proactive in engineering coalitions, and must give adequate time to the single largest party to establish its majority on the floor of the House.

Sarkaria Commission: set up 1983, headed by Justice R.S. Sarkaria; final report 1988; covered Centre-State relations including role of Governors
Punchhi Commission: set up 2007, headed by Justice M.M. Punchhi; final report 2010
Both commissions: non-binding recommendations, but cited extensively by courts
Five subsequent Supreme Court judgments have incorporated these conventions into justiciable norms (Bommai being the most significant)
Governor's position: constitutional head of a state; a nominal (not real) executive; must act on aid and advice of CoM after government formation
Governor's pre-formation discretion: invitation to form government in a hung assembly is one of the few genuine discretionary powers, but it is convention-bound

Connection to this news: The legal argument before the Supreme Court — that the Governor must invite the single largest party first, then allow the floor test to determine majority — is squarely derived from the Sarkaria Commission's ordering and the Bommai judgment's insistence that confidence must be tested in the House.

Historical Instances of Government Formation Without a Prior Majority

Constitutional practice since 1967 has generated multiple precedents of governments being sworn in and then proving majority on the floor:

1967 Bihar: Congress won less than a majority; Mahamaya Prasad Sinha was invited as leader of the largest party, sworn in, and later lost a floor test.
1989 (Centre): V.P. Singh's Janata Dal formed a minority government with outside support from Left and BJP — sworn in and proved majority subsequently.
1996 (Centre): H.D. Deve Gowda's United Front government formed a 13-party coalition — sworn in before full majority was confirmed; sought confidence vote within days.
1998 (Centre): Atal Bihari Vajpayee's government (NDA) fell by a single vote on a confidence motion just 13 months after formation.
2018 Karnataka: B.S. Yediyurappa was invited as BJP leader (single largest party, 104/224 seats) and sworn in, but resigned before the floor test after the Supreme Court intervened and ordered a time-bound vote.

The consistent judicial thread: swear in first, floor test immediately thereafter — not proof of majority as a pre-condition.

Magic number in Tamil Nadu (2026): 118 out of 234 seats
TVK (single largest): 108 seats; with Congress support: ~113 seats; still 5 short
Floor test can be ordered by the Supreme Court on a timeline — Karnataka 2018 precedent shows courts set a deadline of 2 days for the trust vote
Post-poll support: parties and independents not part of any pre-poll alliance can extend support; this is constitutionally valid (Sarkaria framework)
Governor's Article 175(2) power: the Governor can address the House and require the House to transact specified business — including a confidence vote (floor test)

Connection to this news: India's constitutional jurisprudence and historical precedent overwhelmingly support the position that the single largest party leader must be invited first and may prove majority on the floor — not before the oath.

Key Facts & Data

Article 164: State Council of Ministers; Article 75: Union Council of Ministers; both require collective responsibility to the elected House
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): 9-judge bench; floor is sole forum for majority test
Tamil Nadu Assembly (2026): 234 seats; majority mark: 118; TVK won: 108 seats
Sarkaria Commission: 1983–88; Punchhi Commission: 2007–10 — both recommend single largest party invited first
Karnataka 2018 precedent: Supreme Court ordered floor test within 2 days of swearing-in
Article 356: President's Rule in states; Bommai curtailed arbitrary imposition — floor test must precede its invocation
Article 175(2): Governor may summon the House to transact specified business (including a trust vote)
Collective responsibility (Article 164(2)): Council of Ministers collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly
Governor's role post-government formation: strictly bound by aid and advice of Council of Ministers (Article 163)