Governor’s Role in a Hung Assembly: Why Floor Tests Matter in Indian Democracy

A hung Assembly creates one of the most sensitive constitutional situations in Indian politics. When no political party or alliance secures a clear majority after elections, the responsibility of ensuring stable government formation falls largely on the Governor. In such situations, the Governor’s actions often come under intense public, political, and judicial scrutiny.

The recent debates surrounding government formation in Tamil Nadu after the Assembly elections have once again brought attention to the constitutional role of Governors, the importance of floor tests, and the limits of discretionary powers under the Constitution.

What Happens in a Hung Assembly?

A hung Assembly arises when no political party or pre-poll alliance wins the minimum number of seats required to form a majority government in the Legislative Assembly.

In such circumstances, the Constitution does not provide a rigid formula for appointing the Chief Minister. Under Article 164 of the Constitution of India, the Governor appoints the Chief Minister, but the process becomes complicated when there is no clear majority.

The Governor’s primary duty is to ensure that a stable and constitutionally valid government is formed in the State.

Governor’s Constitutional Responsibility

The Governor is expected to function as a neutral constitutional authority rather than a political actor. Over the years, constitutional experts, commissions, and courts have repeatedly stressed that the Governor must act impartially.

The Sarkaria Commission, which examined Centre–State relations, recommended that Governors should avoid personal discretion and follow constitutional principles while inviting parties to form the government.

The Governor is also expected to explore all possible options for government formation by consulting political parties, alliances, and independent MLAs within a reasonable timeframe.

However, constitutional experts warn that excessive delays can create political instability and encourage practices such as defections, bargaining, and horse-trading.

Order of Preference in Government Formation

Over time, constitutional conventions and judicial rulings have established a broad order of preference for inviting parties to form the government in a hung Assembly.

Pre-Poll Alliance with Majority Gets First Preference

The Sarkaria Commission recommended that a pre-poll alliance commanding a majority should receive the first invitation to form the government.

This principle is considered important because voters are presumed to have voted with knowledge of the alliance arrangement before elections.

Courts have also supported the idea that a pre-election coalition carrying majority support has stronger democratic legitimacy.

Single Largest Party as the Next Option

If no pre-poll alliance secures a majority, the Governor may invite the single largest party to form the government.

However, the party must demonstrate that it has the support of enough legislators to command majority confidence in the Assembly.

This support may come from smaller parties, independent MLAs, or post-election alliances.

Post-Poll Alliances Are Constitutionally Valid

The Constitution does not prohibit post-poll coalitions. The Supreme Court has recognised that coalition politics has become a regular feature of Indian democracy.

Therefore, parties forming alliances after election results are declared can also legitimately stake claim to government formation if they are capable of proving majority support.

Minority Governments Are Not Unconstitutional

A major constitutional clarification came from the Supreme Court in the landmark S. R. Bommai case.

The Court observed that the Constitution does not require the ruling party to independently hold an absolute majority. What matters is whether the government enjoys the confidence of the Legislative Assembly.

This means even a minority government can continue constitutionally if it proves majority support through alliances or outside backing.

Growing Debate Around Governor’s Discretion

In recent years, several political controversies have emerged regarding the role of Governors in hung Assemblies.

Critics have frequently alleged that Governors sometimes exercise discretionary powers in ways that favour the ruling party at the Centre.

Questions have also been raised regarding delays in inviting parties to form governments, insistence on procedural requirements, and recommendations for President’s Rule.

The present controversy involving Governor Rajendra Arlekar has revived these debates. Critics argue that insistence on physical letters of support delayed the process of government formation.

A petition before the Supreme Court has reportedly argued that the Governor should immediately invite C. Joseph Vijay to form the government and then direct him to prove majority through a floor test.

Why Floor Tests Have Become Central

Over the years, the Supreme Court has increasingly treated floor tests as the most objective and transparent method of determining majority support.

Earlier, the S. R. Bommai judgment mainly viewed floor tests as a method to determine whether an existing government had lost majority support.

However, later rulings expanded this principle and emphasised that majority claims should ordinarily be tested on the floor of the Assembly itself.

The Court repeatedly observed that democratic legitimacy cannot depend solely on the Governor’s subjective assessment.

Instead, elected representatives in the Legislative Assembly must determine who commands majority confidence.

Goa Political Crisis (2017)

The Goa Assembly elections in 2017 produced a hung verdict.

Although the Congress emerged as the single largest party, the Bharatiya Janata Party quickly secured support from regional parties and independents.

Governor Mridula Sinha invited Manohar Parrikar to form the government.

The Congress challenged the decision before the Supreme Court. While the Court did not stop Parrikar from taking oath as Chief Minister, it reduced the time granted for proving majority from 15 days to 48 hours.

Parrikar later won the floor test in the Assembly.

The case reinforced the principle that majority should be tested quickly on the Assembly floor.

Karnataka Political Crisis (2018)

The Karnataka political crisis of 2018 became another major constitutional test.

The Governor invited B. S. Yediyurappa to form the government and granted him 15 days to prove majority.

The Congress–JD(S) alliance challenged the decision before the Supreme Court.

The Court intervened and reduced the period for the floor test to just 24 hours. It also directed that the voting process should be conducted openly under live television coverage rather than through secret ballot.

Before the trust vote could take place, Yediyurappa resigned.

This case further strengthened the judicial preference for immediate floor tests in hung Assemblies.

Assembly Floor, Not Raj Bhavan

The Supreme Court has consistently emphasised that democratic legitimacy must be decided inside the Legislative Assembly and not at the Raj Bhavan.

According to the Court, Governors cannot become final arbiters of majority support based purely on private assessments or political claims.

The Assembly floor remains the constitutionally recognised space where majority confidence must be tested.

This principle is considered essential for protecting parliamentary democracy and preventing arbitrary constitutional decisions.

Governor’s Power to Dissolve the Assembly

If no political party or alliance is able to form a stable government, the Governor may eventually recommend dissolution of the Assembly under Article 174(2)(b).

The Supreme Court recognised this possibility in cases such as the B. R. Kapur case and the Rameshwar Prasad case.

However, dissolution is treated as a last resort.

The Governor must first explore every reasonable possibility of government formation before recommending fresh elections or President’s Rule under Article 356.

President’s Rule as the Final Constitutional Option

If all efforts to establish a stable government fail, the Governor may recommend President’s Rule.

Under Article 356, the President can assume control of the State administration upon receiving the Governor’s report.

However, the misuse of Article 356 has historically been controversial in India.

The Supreme Court, particularly in the S. R. Bommai judgment, imposed important constitutional limitations on arbitrary imposition of President’s Rule.

The Court held that federalism and democratic governance are part of the Constitution’s basic structure and cannot be undermined for political purposes.

Conclusion

Hung Assemblies test the strength of India’s constitutional democracy. In such situations, the Governor’s role becomes extremely important because the office acts as a bridge between electoral outcomes and government formation.

Over time, constitutional conventions and Supreme Court rulings have evolved clear principles for handling such crises. These include impartial conduct by Governors, preference for majority-backed alliances, quick floor tests, and limited use of discretionary powers.