Answer

Introduction

In a Hung Assembly, the Governor’s role is constitutionally limited to ensuring stable government formation, not political choice. Judicial rulings have repeatedly stressed that discretion must follow constitutional morality, neutrality, and floor-test based legitimacy.

Constitutional Basis & SC Judgments

• Aid Principle: Under Article 163, the Governor acts on aid and advice except in limited discretionary areas; discretion is not absolute or personal.
  Eg: In Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974), SC held that the Governor is only a constitutional head.
• CM Appointment: Article 164 empowers Governor to appoint Chief Minister, but convention requires inviting the person most likely to command majority support.
  Eg: Sarkaria Commission recommended inviting pre-poll alliance or single largest party with support.
• Floor Test Rule: Majority must be tested only on the Assembly floor, not through Raj Bhavan satisfaction or private verification.
  Eg: In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, SC made floor test the constitutional standard.
• Immediate Proof: Governor can require a prompt floor test but cannot indefinitely delay swearing-in or impose arbitrary conditions beforehand.
  Eg: Jagdambika Pal case ordered urgent floor test within 48 hours.
• Judicial Limits: Courts can review mala fide or arbitrary gubernatorial actions violating constitutional norms and democratic mandate.
  Eg: In Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India, Bihar Assembly dissolution was struck down.

Partisanship Concerns

• Selective Invitations: Governors sometimes bypass the single largest party and favour politically aligned parties, raising bias concerns.
  Eg: Tamil Nadu 2026, Governor initially refused to invite the single largest vote securing party.
• Arbitrary Conditions: Demanding support letters beyond constitutional practice allows manipulation and delay in government formation.
  Eg: The Governor asked the largest voted party for signed support of 118 MLAs before administering oath.
• Delay Tactics: Unnecessary postponement of swearing-in creates space for defections, horse-trading, and political bargaining.
  Eg: Supreme Court criticised such delay in the Maharashtra Government Formation Case.
• Central Influence: Since Governors are appointed by the Union, opposition-ruled States often allege partisan interference and federal imbalance.
  Eg: Punchhi Commission noted frequent Centre-State friction due to misuse of gubernatorial office.
• Federal Erosion: Partisan conduct weakens cooperative federalism by converting Raj Bhavan into a political rather than constitutional institution.

Safeguards for Neutrality

• Fixed Order: Adopt a clear order of preference for invitation to avoid arbitrariness in hung Assembly situations.
• Mandatory Floor Test: Make time-bound floor tests compulsory within a short period to prevent manipulation outside the legislature.
  Eg: Shiv Sena-NCP-Congress Maharashtra Case directed floor test within 24 hours.
• Written Reasons: Governors should record written constitutional reasons for invitation decisions to ensure transparency and judicial scrutiny.
  Eg: Punchhi Commission recommended reasoned decision-making for gubernatorial discretion.
• Appointment Reform: Consultation with the Chief Minister or an independent mechanism can reduce perceptions of political appointments.
  Eg: Administrative Reforms Commission supported reform in Governor appointments.
• Constitutional Code: A binding code of conduct should define post-election gubernatorial behaviour and limit misuse of discretion.
  Eg: Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions both sought codified conventions for Raj Bhavan functioning.

Conclusion

The future of Indian federalism depends on ensuring that Governors act as neutral constitutional guardians, not political actors. Transparent conventions, swift floor tests, and accountable discretion will uphold democratic legitimacy and strengthen public trust in parliamentary governance.

DOWNLOAD PDF