Governor should be convinced that single largest party can win a majority

The Supreme Court has reiterated that the Governor must be satisfied — through objective material rather than subjective judgment — that the single largest p...

What Happened

The Supreme Court has reiterated that the Governor must be satisfied — through objective material rather than subjective judgment — that the single largest party in a hung assembly can command a majority before inviting it to form the government.
The Court held that the Governor should call the leader of the single largest party and give them an opportunity to stake a claim to form the government with the support of other parties, but this invitation must be based on a reasonable assessment that such a majority is achievable.
Imposition of President's Rule under Article 356(1) must be treated as a last resort and can be invoked only where no party or coalition is in a position to form a stable government — not as a first response to a hung assembly.
The judgment underscores that the actual test of majority must be conducted on the floor of the Legislative Assembly, not through the Governor's independent assessment of legislators' loyalties.

Static Topic Bridges

Article 356 — President's Rule

Article 356 of the Constitution empowers the President to assume the administration of a state if the President is satisfied, on the receipt of a report from the Governor or otherwise, that the governance of the state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Colloquially called "President's Rule," its imposition suspends the state's elected government and transfers executive power to the Governor acting as the President's agent. Parliament must approve the Proclamation within two months, and it can be extended in six-month increments up to a maximum of three years with parliamentary approval.

Article 356 has been invoked over 125 times since 1950 — the most in the early decades of the republic.
A Proclamation lapses if not approved by both Houses of Parliament within two months.
Courts can subject the Proclamation to judicial review and can restore a dismissed government if the imposition is found to be malafide or lacking adequate material — confirmed in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994).
The 44th Constitutional Amendment (1978) made the Proclamation subject to parliamentary approval and judicial review, curtailing the previously near-absolute executive discretion.

Connection to this news: The Supreme Court's clarification reinforces the principle established in S.R. Bommai — that Article 356 is a last resort and cannot be invoked merely because a hung assembly creates political uncertainty.

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

The S.R. Bommai case is one of the most consequential constitutional judgments in Indian history. A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court, in a decision reported at AIR 1994 SC 1918 / (1994) 3 SCC 1, laid down binding guidelines on the use of Article 356 and the conduct of the Governor. The case arose from the dismissal of several state governments in 1988–89 under politically controversial circumstances.

The Court held that federalism is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and Article 356 must not be used to subvert it.
Floor of the Assembly is the only constitutionally valid forum to determine whether a government commands majority support — the Governor cannot substitute his personal assessment for a floor test.
Presidential Proclamations under Article 356 are subject to full judicial review; courts can examine whether sufficient and relevant material existed and whether the action was taken in good faith.
If the Proclamation is found unconstitutional, courts can restore the dissolved Legislative Assembly.
Parliament must thoroughly analyse the Proclamation: if it fails to get approval of both Houses within two months, the Proclamation lapses automatically and the assembly is restored.

Connection to this news: The present Supreme Court ruling builds directly on Bommai by specifying how the Governor must handle the initial stage of government formation — before Article 356 is even reached — ensuring that the single largest party gets a constitutionally fair opportunity.

Governor's Discretionary Powers — Article 163 and Government Formation

Article 163 of the Constitution provides that the Governor shall act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in the exercise of his functions, except where the Constitution requires him to act in his discretion. The appointment of a Chief Minister when no single party commands a clear majority in the assembly is one of the few situations where the Governor exercises genuine discretion. However, judicial interpretation has progressively narrowed the scope of this discretion.

Sarkaria Commission (1988) and Punchhi Commission (2010) both recommended that the single largest party (or pre-election coalition) should be given the first opportunity to prove majority on the floor of the house.
The Governor's discretion in this context is limited to a prima facie assessment of the likelihood of majority; final determination must be through a floor test.
Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh (2016): the Supreme Court held that the Governor's discretionary actions are subject to judicial review if they exceed constitutional limits.
The Governor cannot dissolve the assembly without first exploring the possibility of an alternative government, nor can he recommend President's Rule without first providing an opportunity for a floor test.

Connection to this news: The current judgment reinforces that the Governor's invitation to the single largest party is constitutionally appropriate but must be based on a genuine assessment of majority formation prospects — not a mechanical rule that always favours the largest party regardless of arithmetic realities.

Hung Assembly — Constitutional and Political Dynamics

A hung assembly (or hung legislature) arises when no single party or pre-election alliance secures an outright majority in a state legislative assembly. In such situations, post-election coalition building is constitutionally necessary, and the Governor's role in managing this process becomes critical to democratic stability.

Constitutional threshold for majority: simple majority of members present and voting (Article 179 read with Rules of Procedure of respective state assemblies for confidence motions).
Anti-defection law (Tenth Schedule, 1985): MLAs who vote against party direction can be disqualified, but this does not apply to a genuine split or merger (with limitations post-91st Amendment).
91st Constitutional Amendment (2003): capped the size of the Council of Ministers at 15% of the total strength of the legislative assembly to prevent excessive coalition patronage.
The concept of "composite floor test" — used when multiple parties stake competing claims — allows the Governor to call for a special session where all claimants vote simultaneously on the floor.

Connection to this news: The Court's guidance is particularly relevant in the contemporary political environment, where hung assemblies at the state level have become more frequent, making the Governor's conduct a repeated flashpoint in centre-state relations.

Key Facts & Data

Article 356 invoked: over 125 times since the Constitution came into force (1950)
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India: AIR 1994 SC 1918, nine-judge bench decision
44th Constitutional Amendment (1978): introduced parliamentary oversight of President's Rule
Sarkaria Commission report: 1988 (centre-state relations)
Punchhi Commission report: 2010 (centre-state relations)
Nabam Rebia case: 2016, Supreme Court on Governor's discretion in Arunachal Pradesh
Article 163: Governor to act on advice of Council of Ministers except in discretionary functions
91st Amendment (2003): capped Council of Ministers at 15% of legislative assembly strength
Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law): added to the Constitution by the 52nd Amendment, 1985