It is being alleged that governor refused to allow TVK to form government which has once again brought debate on the role of governor in a hung assembly case.
The scenario in Tamil Nadu is as follows:
| Party | Seats Won (2026) |
|---|---|
| TVK | 108 |
| DMK | 59 |
| AIADMK | 47 |
| INC | 5 |
| PMK | 4 |
| Others (CPI, CPM, VCK, IUML, BJP, etc.) | 11 |
The principle that the floor of the House is the only legitimate place to determine a government’s majority is a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law. This rule ensures that a government’s survival depends on the elected legislature rather than the subjective “satisfaction” or personal assessment of a Governor.
The following are the landmark cases that established and reinforced this principle:
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
This is the most significant case on this subject. A 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court was examining the dismissal of various state governments under Article 356 (President’s Rule).
-
- The Ruling: The Court held that whether a Chief Minister has lost the confidence of the House is a matter to be decided only on the floor of the House and not in the Governor’s chambers or the “Raj Bhavan.”
- The Logic: The Governor’s subjective assessment of support through signatures or parades of MLAs is unreliable and prone to political manipulation. The House is the only forum where the strength of the ministry can be tested through a vote.
- Key Quote: “The floor of the House is the only forum for the test of majority of the Ministry of the State.”
The Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006)
While Bommai established that the floor is the place to test a majority, Rameshwar Prasad ensured that the Governor cannot use “subjective fears” to stop that test from happening in the first place.
The Context: Bihar 2005
After the February 2005 Bihar Assembly elections, no party had a majority. The Assembly was kept in “suspended animation” (it existed, but was not allowed to meet).
-
- The Governor’s Action: Governor Buta Singh sent a report to the President claiming that “unethical means” and “horse-trading” were being used to win over MLAs. Based on this, he recommended the dissolution of the Assembly before it even met for its first session.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling
-
- Subjective Satisfaction vs. Objective Fact: The Court held that a Governor cannot dissolve an Assembly simply because they “suspect” that a majority is being cobbled together through unethical means.
- The “Floor” is Sacred: The Court reiterated that even if the Governor suspects horse-trading, the correct course of action is to let the government be formed and then let it prove its majority on the floor of the House.
- Prevention of Minority Rule: The Court noted that the Governor’s power cannot be used to prevent a political party from staking a claim to form a government just because the Governor dislikes the “ethics” of the alliance.
Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016)
This case arose from a constitutional crisis in Arunachal Pradesh where the Governor had bypassed the Chief Minister and the Speaker to advance an assembly session.
-
- The Ruling: A 5-judge Constitution Bench reaffirmed the Bommai verdict. It emphasized that as long as the Council of Ministers enjoys the confidence of the House, the Governor is bound by the “aid and advice” of the Council of Ministers.
- The Impact: It clarified that the Governor cannot use their discretionary powers to interfere with the functioning of the House or decide on the majority of a government without a formal floor test.
Subhash Desai v. Governor of Maharashtra (2023)
Commonly known as the Shiv Sena vs. Shiv Sena case, this involved the split in the party and the subsequent resignation of Uddhav Thackeray.
-
- The Ruling: The Court noted that the Governor (Bhagat Singh Koshyari) erred in calling for a floor test based merely on a faction’s internal dissent.
- The Logic: The Court stated that the Governor cannot enter the “internal domain” of a party to decide its majority. The Governor’s power to call for a floor test should only be exercised when there is credible material indicating that the government has lost the support of the House, not just when there is a split within a political party.
The “Goa/Manipur/Karnataka” Paradox
A major point of contention was the double standard applied by Governors. In 2017 (Goa and Manipur), the BJP was not the single largest party, yet Governors invited them because they formed post-poll alliances.
In Karnataka 2018, the Governor reversed this logic, inviting the SLP (BJP) despite a post-poll alliance having the numbers. This inconsistency led to the Court’s intervention to ensure the “floor test” remained the ultimate arbiter.
The Two Contradictory Logics
There are two primary “schools of thought” for a Governor in a hung assembly:
-
- The Single Largest Party (SLP) Rule: Invite the party with the most seats, even if they lack a majority, on the assumption they can find support later.
- The “Post-Poll Alliance” Rule: Invite a coalition of parties that, when added together, immediately cross the majority mark.
Part 1: The 2017 Experience (Goa & Manipur)
In these states, the Congress was the Single Largest Party, but the BJP acted faster to stitch together post-poll alliances.
-
-
- Goa (40 seats): Congress had 17, BJP had 13.
- Manipur (60 seats): Congress had 28, BJP had 21.
-
The Governor’s Action: In both states, the Governors rejected the SLP (Congress) and invited the BJP-led alliance.
-
-
- The Logic Used: The Governors argued that the goal is to form a “stable” government. They claimed a post-poll alliance with a clear majority (on paper) is more stable than a single largest party that is still “hunting” for numbers.
- Supreme Court Stance: The Court refused to stay the swearing-in but ordered an immediate floor test, essentially validating that a post-poll alliance can be invited over an SLP if they show proof of majority.
-
Part 2: The 2018 Karnataka Experience
In the May 2018 Karnataka Assembly elections, the results for the 224-seat house were:
-
-
- BJP: 104 seats (Single Largest Party)
- Congress: 78 seats
- JD(S): 37 seats
- Others: 3 seats
-
The majority mark was 112. While the BJP was the single largest party, the Congress and JD(S) quickly formed a post-poll alliance claiming 117 seats (well above the majority).
The Governor’s Controversial Move
-
- The Discretion: The Governor gave Yediyurappa 15 days to prove his majority on the floor of the House.
The “Midnight” Supreme Court Hearing
The Congress-JD(S) combine moved the Supreme Court in a desperate late-night petition to stay the swearing-in ceremony.
-
- The Hearing: In a historic 1:30 AM session, a three-judge bench refused to stay the oath-taking but made it clear that the government’s survival was subject to the final outcome of the case.
- The Verdict: On May 18, 2018, the Court drastically cut down the Governor’s 15-day window. It ordered a floor test within 24 hours, famously stating:
“Let the House decide.”
The Outcome
On May 19, 2018, B.S. Yediyurappa realized he did not have the numbers to pass the floor test. In a televised emotional speech on the floor of the House, he resigned without facing the vote. Subsequently, H.D. Kumaraswamy (JD(S)-Congress alliance) was sworn in as Chief Minister.
The “Double Standard” at a Glance
| State | Year | Single Largest Party (SLP) | Post-Poll Alliance (Majority) | Governor's Decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Goa | 2017 | Congress | BJP + Others | Invited Alliance (Rejected SLP) |
| Manipur | 2017 | Congress | BJP + Others | Invited Alliance (Rejected SLP) |
| Karnataka | 2018 | BJP | Congress + JD(S) | Invited SLP (Rejected Alliance) |
The Supreme Court’s Intervention (The Final Word)
The Court realized that if Governors could switch between these two logics at will, the “discretionary power” under Article 163 would become a tool for political engineering.
In the 2018 Karnataka Midnight Hearing, the Court didn’t explicitly say the Governor couldn’t invite the SLP, but it stripped away the Governor’s ability to “protect” that government. It did this by:
- Drastically reducing the time: The 15-day window was cut to 24 hours.
- Strict Supervision: It ordered the floor test to be conducted immediately, proving that while a Governor can invite whoever they want, they cannot ensure their survival.
Relevance to your 2026 TVK Scenario
If TVK (108 seats) is the SLP, and a DMK-AIADMK alliance (hypothetically 106 seats) tried to claim power with “Others,” the Governor would face this exact paradox. According to the Sarkaria Commission, the order of preference should be:
-
- Pre-poll alliance
- Single Largest Party (SLP) claiming support
- Post-poll alliance (all partners joining)
- Post-poll alliance (some partners supporting from outside)
Both the Sarkaria Commission (1988) and the Punchhi Commission (2010) laid down a specific, structured order of preference that the Governor should follow to minimize arbitrary decisions.
| Sarkaria Commission’s Order | Punchhi Commission’s Order |
|---|---|
| Pre-poll alliance: An alliance of parties that was formed prior to the Elections. The largest single party: The largest single party staking a claim to form the government with the support of others, including “independents.” A post-electoral coalition support from inside: A post-electoral coalition of parties, with all the partners in the coalition joining the Government. A post-electoral coalition support from outside: A post-electoral alliance of parties, with some of the parties in the alliance forming a Government and the remaining parties, including “independents” supporting the Government from outside. | Option A. The party or combination of parties which commands the widest support in the Legislative Assembly should be called upon to form the Government. Option B. If there is a pre-poll alliance or coalition, it should be treated as one political party and if such coalition obtains a majority, the leader of such coalition shall be called by the Governor to form the Government. Option C. In case no party or pre-poll coalition has a clear majority, the Governor should select the Chief Minister in the order of preference indicated below: Pre-poll alliance The largest single party A post-electoral coalition support from inside A post-electoral coalition support from outside Note: Option C is similar to Sarkaria Commission’s four orders. |
However, as the 2017/2018 cases show, Governors often pick the rule that suits the political climate, which is why the Supreme Court now insists that the Floor Test happen almost immediately to prevent the Governor’s “discretion” from becoming “dictatorship.”
The Governor’s role is that of a facilitator, not a kingmaker. If the Governor ignores the “Order of Preference” (e.g., bypassing a pre-poll majority to invite the single largest party), their decision is now fully open to Judicial Review.
Note: The recent Supreme Court rulings (including the November 2025 Advisory Opinion) have clarified that this discretion is not “absolute” and is subject to Judicial Review if exercised in a mala fide (bad faith) manner or to subvert constitutional democracy.
Spread the Word