AI-generated image used for representation
NEW DELHI: In world’s largest democracy, election results do not always end the suspense. Sometimes, the real drama begins after the votes are counted — inside the Raj Bhavans.Whenever an assembly election throws up a fractured mandate, the governor takes centrestage and becomes the final arbiter. Political parties rush with letters of support, alliances are stitched overnight, and constitutional debates divide the masses.At the heart of the battle lies one question: Who gets invited first to form the government?
The Constitution gives the governor the power to appoint the chief minister under Article 164, but it does not clearly spell out the order in which parties or alliances must be invited. That constitutional grey zone has triggered some of India’s biggest political flashpoints.
Numbers test in Tamil Nadu
One such flashpoint was in Tamil Nadu recently when people of the state voted for Thalapathy’s ‘Vijay’ but the actor-politician’s star performance missed “success” by a whisker.Thalapathy Vijay’s entry into Tamil Nadu’s electoral landscape shook the foundations of Dravidian politics. For nearly six decades, the state had swung between the DMK and the AIADMK. But the 2026 verdict shattered that familiar pattern. Vijay’s Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), barely two years old and contesting its first-ever assembly election, stormed past both Dravidian giants, emerging as the single largest party with 108 seats in the 234-member assembly. The Thalapathy wave was so potent that Tamil Nadu strongman and the then incumbent chief minister MK Stalin failed to even retain his MLA seat.The DMK was pushed down to 59 seats, while the AIADMK slumped to 47. The message from voters was unmistakable: Tamil Nadu wanted change. They did vote for change. But Vijay remained short of the halfway mark of 118 needed to bring about that change on his own.Since Vijay himself had contested and won from two constituencies, the effective strength of the TVK stood at 107. The Congress, with five MLAs, made the first big move. In a dramatic shift, it snapped its 11-year alliance with the DMK and extended support to Vijay. Soon after, the CPM and CPI, with two MLAs each, also backed the TVK from outside. But the numbers still fell short.Then came the rebels and the reluctant allies.AMMK MLA S Kamaraj crossed over to support Vijay’s camp. The VCK and IUML, both initially hesitant despite holding two seats each, eventually joined hands with the TVK after days of suspense-filled negotiations. Only then did Vijay finally gather enough support to cross the majority mark and stake claim to power.The celebrations, that started with the numbers, stopped midway as Vijay started looking for numbers in a hung assembly. The road to Fort St George suddenly became a test not of popularity, but arithmetic. The ball was now in the court of governor Rajendra Arlekar and he wanted to test the numbers. What followed was a week of relentless backroom discussions, persuasion, and political calculations.
Raj Bhavan: The final hurdle?
The spotlight had now shifted from the cine star to the governor. With a historic verdict and assurance of numbers in hand, Vijay went to the governor hoping to get an invite. But he was asked to show his numbers on paper.Governor Rajendra Arlekar, who was holding additional charge of Tamil Nadu at the time, did not immediately invite Vijay to form the government. The delay triggered intense political and also constitutional debate.The Constitution does not lay down a rigid formula for how governors must exercise their discretionary powers in such situations.Traditionally, governors invite the leader of the single-largest party or a pre-poll alliance capable of proving their majority. But our political history is filled with moments when this constitutional convention collided with the political discretion of the governor, who is often accused of working at the behest of the party ruling at the Centre.
(ANI photo)
Tamil Nadu in 2026 became the latest chapter in that story.Vijay eventually received the governor’s invitation after all the support letters were in place and the majority was demonstrated in numbers. On May 10 the actor-politician finally took oath as chief minister at Chennai’s Nehru Indoor Stadium becoming the first leader outside the DMK-AIADMK duopoly to occupy the post since 1967.But the number test was still not over. The governor gave him three days to prove his numbers on the floor of the assembly, which he did with ease.The Vijay fever not only swept the masses but also significantly influenced political circles. It went so far that the half-a-century-old party founded by veteran leader MG Ramachandran – AIADMK – split wide open. AIADMK’s current boss and former chief minister Edappadi Palaniswami could not hold back his MLAs, as a large section of the winning chunk emerged as rebels and supported chief minister Vijay in the floor test.For Vijay, it was more than a political victory. It was the climax of a remarkable transition from cinema icon to chief minister. For Tamil Nadu, it marked the collapse of a decades-old political order. And for Indian politics, it was yet another reminder that in democracy, the verdict of the people may decide the destination, but the journey to power can still depend on negotiations, conventions, and the discretion of constitutional offices.
What the Constitution says
Former Lok Sabha secretary general PDT Achary told TOI, “The Governor cannot insist on a floor test before a government is formed. He has the discretionary power to choose any person to form the government. But he should be able to command the majority in the Assembly. The Governor has to judge whether the person he chooses will be able to secure a majority. He can call the leader of the single largest party to form the government provided the Governor is satisfied that he can get a majority in the assembly.”But not everyone agrees on how far those powers extend.Senior advocate and former Delhi HC Bar Association president Kirti Uppal argued that being the single-largest party does not automatically guarantee the first invitation.“There is no constitutional rule or absolute right that the single largest party must be invited first. “Single largest party” is a political convention, not a binding constitutional mandate,” Uppal told TOI.
He pointed to Article 163(2), which grants Governors discretionary powers in specific situations.“163(2): If any question arises whether any matter is or is not a matter as respects which the Governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his discretion, the decision of the governor in his discretion shall be final, and the validity of anything done by the Governor shall not be called in question on the ground that he ought or ought not to have acted in his discretion.”Uppal also defended the use of floor tests as the ultimate democratic check.
The governor can order a floor test at any time, whether it is before the government. formation or during the tenure of the ministry. Ultimately, the floor test is considered the supreme democratic method to test the majority of the government on the floor of the house.
Senior advocate Kirti Uppal
However, Supreme Court advocate Vivek Narayan Sharma strongly disagreed with the idea of demanding proof of majority before inviting a government to take oath.“The governor cannot insist on a floor test before inviting a party to form the government. A floor test is constitutionally meant to test the majority of a government that has already been appointed, not to determine who gets appointed in the first place,” Sharma told TOI.“The governor’s role at the invitation stage is only prima facie satisfaction, not conclusive adjudication. The Governor may make a prima facie inquiry through letters of support or coalition claims, but cannot insist on a ‘prove majority first, then I will appoint you’ approach as if Raj Bhavan itself were the floor of the House.”
Governors vs governments: A history of tussle
That debate is not just theoretical. The instances of friction between governor’s office and elected players are filled up in country’s political history.In Maharashtra in 2019, the state woke up to one of the most dramatic political twists in recent memory. Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari administered an early morning oath to Devendra Fadnavis with support from NCP’s Ajit Pawar. The surprise government collapsed within days after numbers failed to add up.When BJP ally Shiv Sena under Uddhav Thackeray withdrew its support and added up with Congress and other faction of NCP to form their own government.A year earlier in Karnataka, governor Vajubhai Vala invited veteran leader BS Yediyurappa to form the government despite the Congress-JD(S) alliance claiming majority support. The Supreme Court had to step in and order an immediate floor test.In Goa and Manipur in 2017, Congress emerged as the single-largest party, yet Governors invited BJP leaders after post-poll alliances shifted the numbers game.The tension between Governors and elected governments has not remained limited to hung assemblies.In Arunachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand in 2016, political crises spiralled into full-blown constitutional battles involving governors, rebel MLAs and the Centre. In both cases, courts later restored the elected governments.
The Article 356 debate
Any discussion on the role of governors will be incomplete without a discussion on Article 356. There was a time when this provision of the Constitution was used with impunity to destabilize state governments, especially if they were opposed to the party that ruled at the Centre.Article 356 allows the President’s rule to be imposed in a state if constitutional machinery collapsed. And the basis of this was usually the governor’s report.
One of the earliest and most controversial examples came in 1959, when the first-ever elected communist government led by EMS Namboodiripad in Kerala was dismissed.The landmark SR Bommai vs Union of India judgment later imposed major checks on the arbitrary use of Article 356, making floor tests the gold standard for proving majority and opening President’s Rule to judicial review.History is replete with instances when governors have used their discretion to dismiss state governments.Governors’ interference has long been criticised, with critics arguing that since they are appointed by the Centre, they often act in a partisan manner against opposition-ruled states.Yet, every time election results produce a hung verdict, the same political and constitutional questions return. How much discretion should a governor have? Can constitutional authority override political arithmetic? And ultimately, who truly decides the mandate — the assembly floor or Raj Bhavan? Go to Source
