The game of numbers: When governor holds the key to people's verdict

The 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections produced a fractured mandate, with the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) securing 108 seats — ten short of the 118 needed...

What Happened

The 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections produced a fractured mandate, with the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) securing 108 seats — ten short of the 118 needed for a majority in the 234-member assembly.
Following letters of support from 120 members, TVK's chief was sworn in as Chief Minister after the Governor invited him to form the government.
The episode revived constitutional debate about the Governor's role when no single party commands a clear majority — specifically, the extent and limits of gubernatorial discretion in inviting a leader to form the government.
Constitutional experts have highlighted that Article 164 does not prescribe a fixed procedure for selecting a Chief Minister when no party has a majority, leaving significant room for the Governor's judgment — and potential for controversy.
The Sarkaria Commission (1988) and Punchhi Commission (2010) recommendations, while widely cited, are not legally binding, creating recurring uncertainty each time a hung assembly arises.

Static Topic Bridges

Constitutional Provisions: Articles 163 and 164

Article 163 of the Constitution provides that the Governor shall act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers (headed by the Chief Minister) in the exercise of his functions, except in matters where he is required to act in his discretion. Article 164(1) states that the Chief Minister shall be appointed by the Governor.

Article 163(2): If any question arises whether a matter falls within the Governor's discretion, the Governor's decision is final and cannot be questioned in any court.
In the event of a clear majority, the Governor has no discretion — the leader of the majority party must be invited. Discretion only arises in hung assembly situations.
The Supreme Court in Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) held that the Governor must act on ministerial advice in most matters; discretion is the exception, not the rule.

Connection to this news: In Tamil Nadu's hung assembly situation, the Governor's discretion in deciding whether TVK's support claim was genuine and whether its lead constituted a viable government coalition is precisely what Articles 163 and 164 govern — and what the Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions tried to standardise.

Sarkaria and Punchhi Commission Recommendations on Hung Assemblies

The Sarkaria Commission (set up in 1983, report submitted in 1988) was constituted to review Centre-State relations. It laid down an order of preference for the Governor to follow when inviting a Chief Minister after a fractured mandate.

Sarkaria Commission's order of preference: (1) pre-election coalition that commands majority; (2) the single largest party, given the opportunity to prove majority on the floor; (3) a post-election alliance with written support; (4) the single largest party even without a formal alliance, given a chance to prove majority.
The Punchhi Commission (2010) reiterated this order and added that the Governor's discretionary power should be exercised "only in circumstances of compelling necessity" — with reason, good faith, and caution.
Both commission recommendations are advisory — they carry persuasive weight but are not enforceable in courts.

Connection to this news: The Tamil Nadu episode follows the Sarkaria Commission's framework loosely — TVK as the single largest party was given the first opportunity to form the government after demonstrating written support from 120 members. However, the episode illustrates that without statutory codification, each hung assembly situation becomes a potential constitutional flashpoint.

The Governor's Role: Constitutional Head vs. Active Arbiter

The Governor of a state is a constitutional head appointed by the President (and thus the central government) under Article 155. The office is meant to be apolitical and above partisan concerns, functioning as a constitutional safeguard — not as an agent of the appointing authority.

Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006): The Supreme Court held that the Governor cannot act on the basis of personal satisfaction or political considerations when dissolving an assembly or refusing to invite the largest party to form a government; such actions are judicially reviewable.
Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016): The Supreme Court significantly curtailed the Governor's discretionary power, holding that the Governor cannot summon, prorogue, or dissolve the assembly against the advice of the Council of Ministers that commands a majority.
Shivraj Singh Chouhan v. Speaker, MP Assembly (2020) and subsequent cases have reinforced that floor tests — not the Governor's personal assessment — are the legitimate test of majority.

Connection to this news: The Tamil Nadu situation and the broader debate it has sparked highlight the tension between the Governor's textual discretion under Article 164 and the constitutional conventions and judicial precedents that have progressively constrained that discretion in favour of legislative floor tests.

Key Facts & Data

Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly has 234 seats; simple majority requires 118 seats.
TVK secured 108 seats in the 2026 elections — the single largest party but short of majority.
Government was formed after letters of support from 120 members were submitted, taking the tally above the majority mark.
Article 155: The Governor is appointed by the President; Article 156: The Governor holds office at the pleasure of the President (5-year term).
Sarkaria Commission (1983–88) was chaired by Justice R.S. Sarkaria, a retired Supreme Court judge.
Punchhi Commission (2007–10) was chaired by former Chief Justice of India M.M. Punchhi.
Key SC cases: Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974), Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006), Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016).
India has had over 30 hung assembly situations at the state level since 1967.