What is the Governor’s role in a hung Assembly?

Tamil Nadu's 2026 Assembly election produced the state's first hung Assembly: TVK (Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam) secured 108 seats — the single largest party — a...

What Happened

Tamil Nadu's 2026 Assembly election produced the state's first hung Assembly: TVK (Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam) secured 108 seats — the single largest party — against a majority mark of 118 in the 234-member Legislative Assembly.
Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar initially declined to invite TVK chief C Joseph Vijay to form the government, citing the absence of a clear majority, and demanded proof of 118 MLAs' support before the swearing-in could be scheduled.
The Governor's refusal triggered separate petitions in the Supreme Court by TVK members and civil society actors, arguing the constitutional sequence is "invite → swear in → immediate floor test" rather than "prove majority → invite."
Following Vijay's fourth visit to Raj Bhavan and submission of written letters of support from allied parties, Governor Arlekar gave his assent for government formation; the swearing-in was subsequently scheduled.
The episode renewed national debate about the discretionary powers of Governors in coalition scenarios and the limits of gubernatorial authority as defined by the Supreme Court.

Static Topic Bridges

Article 164: Appointment of the Chief Minister

Article 164(1) of the Constitution states 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. While the provision grants the Governor formal appointive power, constitutional convention, binding Supreme Court interpretations, and the Sarkaria and Punchhi Commission reports have progressively circumscribed the Governor's discretion.

In a situation with a clear majority, the Governor has no discretion: the leader of the majority party must be invited.
In a hung assembly, the Governor exercises limited discretion in identifying who is most likely to command confidence, following a prescribed order of preference: pre-poll alliance with majority → single largest party/alliance → post-poll combination.
The Governor cannot demand proof of majority before invitation; the correct sequence established by courts is: invite → swear in → immediate floor test.
Article 164(2): The Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly — ensuring the floor test as the ultimate arbiter.

Connection to this news: Governor Arlekar's initial demand for proof of 118 MLAs before invitation directly contravened the convention that the floor test, not the Governor's subjective assessment, determines majority.

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): The Landmark Ruling

The S.R. Bommai case ([1994] 2 SCR 644; AIR 1994 SC 1918; (1994) 3 SCC 1), decided by a nine-judge constitutional bench, is the foundational Supreme Court ruling on gubernatorial discretion and the invocation of Article 356 (President's Rule). SR Bommai was Chief Minister of Karnataka; the Governor dismissed his government in 1989 without giving him a chance to prove his majority on the Assembly floor. The Supreme Court's ruling placed strict constitutional limits on how Governors may assess majority.

Held: The floor of the House is the only valid forum to test majority; the Governor cannot determine majority by subjective assessment, letters of support, or private satisfaction.
Held: Imposition of President's Rule (Article 356) is subject to judicial review; the Court can examine whether the Governor's report had a rational basis.
Held: A hung assembly itself — where no party secures majority — is a condition where President's Rule may be appropriate, but only as a last resort after exhausting all possibilities of government formation.
The ruling effectively prevented Governors from acting as partisan agents in government-formation disputes.

Connection to this news: Petitioners before the Supreme Court in the Tamil Nadu case directly invoked the Bommai principle — that the Governor must invite the single largest party/coalition and then conduct an immediate floor test, not demand proof beforehand.

Nabam Rebia Case (2016) and the Governor's Discretion

In Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh (2016), a five-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court further narrowed the Governor's discretionary space. The Court held that the Governor cannot act contrary to the advice of the Council of Ministers in convening, proroguing, or dissolving the House except in very specific conditions.

The Governor's discretion under Article 163 operates in a narrow band — only in situations the Constitution explicitly carves out.
The Governor can refuse to swear in only when the claimed majority is prima facie fraudulent or legally impossible — not merely disputed.
The Sarkaria Commission (1988) recommended: in a hung assembly, the Governor should first invite the pre-poll alliance, then the single largest party, then a post-poll alliance, before considering President's Rule.
The Punchhi Commission (2007) added: pre-poll alliances should be prioritised over post-poll arrangements as they carry a clearer popular mandate; Governors must act with constitutional neutrality.

Connection to this news: The Tamil Nadu situation tested precisely this principle — TVK was the single largest party, making it the first constitutional choice for invitation under the Sarkaria-Punchhi framework, regardless of whether it had crossed 118.

Article 356 and President's Rule: The Last Resort

Article 356 empowers the President (acting on the Governor's report) to impose President's Rule in a state if constitutional governance has broken down. Post-Bommai, its use is significantly constrained: Parliament must approve it within two months, and courts can strike it down if the Governor's report was mala fide or without rational basis.

Parliament must ratify President's Rule within 2 months (Rajya Sabha also has a role — preventing the ruling Lok Sabha majority from using it arbitrarily).
President's Rule in a hung assembly is valid only when all avenues of government formation have genuinely been exhausted.
Post-Bommai, the number of Article 356 impositions dropped sharply — from frequent use before 1994 to rare, judicially scrutinised use thereafter.

Connection to this news: The Tamil Nadu episode illustrates how gubernatorial delay in swearing-in, if prolonged, can edge toward constitutional crisis and potential Article 356 territory — which is why the Supreme Court has consistently insisted on the "invite first, floor test immediately" sequence.

Key Facts & Data

Tamil Nadu Assembly: 234 seats total; majority mark = 118 seats.
TVK secured 108 seats in the 2026 Assembly election — single largest party, short of majority.
Governor: Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar (Governor of Tamil Nadu).
Article 164 — appointment of Chief Minister and Council of Ministers.
Article 163 — Council of Ministers to aid and advise Governor; defines scope of Governor's discretion.
Article 356 — President's Rule; subject to Parliamentary approval within 2 months.
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) — nine-judge bench; floor test is the sole test of majority.
Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016) — five-judge bench; Governor's discretion further narrowed.
Sarkaria Commission (1988) — recommended order: pre-poll alliance → single largest party → post-poll alliance → President's Rule.
Punchhi Commission (2007) — added that pre-poll alliances carry stronger democratic mandate; Governors must act with constitutional neutrality.