Hung mandate: Let Tamil Nadu Assembly floor decide
The Tribune Editorial: The Governor is expected to determine which formation is most likely to command the confidence of the Assembly
TAMIL Nadu’s unfolding post-election uncertainty has once again brought the constitutional role of the Governor under scrutiny. With Vijay’s Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam emerging as the single largest party but falling short of the halfway mark, the question before Raj Bhavan is politically explosive yet constitutionally settled: who should be invited to form the government? The Constitution does not automatically grant the single largest party the right to govern. The Governor is expected to determine which formation is most likely to command the confidence of the Assembly. However, decades of political controversies have shown how this discretionary power can become a source of suspicion, allegations of bias and charges of partisan intervention.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly clarified the constitutional position, emphasising that majority must be tested on the floor of the House, not in the Governor’s subjective satisfaction. The Karnataka 2018 episode is the clearest precedent, when the BJP emerged as the single largest party but lacked a majority. The Governor invited it to form the government and granted 15 days to prove numbers. The SC intervened, ordered an immediate floor test to prevent prolonged political manoeuvring and possible defections. Unable to gather support, BJP’s Yediyurappa resigned before the trust vote, after which HD Kumaraswamy formed the government with Congress support. In 2017, in Goa, the Governor invited a post-poll coalition because it demonstrated majority support earlier than the Congress, despite the latter being the largest party. These cases establish a crucial principle: numbers on the Assembly floor matter more than claims outside it.
If Vijay can demonstrate a workable majority, he should be allowed to take oath and face a floor test within days. Equally, if another coalition reaches the majority mark first, it too has a legitimate constitutional claim. Hung verdicts are part of democracy. Constitutional ambiguity should not be.
