The dust has barely settled on Tamil Nadu’s 2026 Assembly elections, and already a political controversy has erupted around Governor Rajendra Arlekar’s decision to seek documentary proof of majority before inviting anyone to form the government. Critics, particularly sections sympathetic to TVK leader Vijay, have portrayed the move as politically motivated. But stripped of the rhetoric, the Governor’s position appears rooted far more in constitutional caution than political bias.
Let us begin with the arithmetic, because constitutional debates cannot escape numerical reality. The Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly has 234 seats, meaning any party or alliance requires 118 MLAs to claim a simple majority. TVK currently holds 107 seats. Even if the support of the Congress’s five MLAs is added, the combined tally rises only to 113 — still five short of the majority mark.
In such a situation, the Governor’s refusal to immediately administer the oath of office without further proof of support cannot automatically be dismissed as unconstitutional. On the contrary, it reflects a basic constitutional question: can the claimant genuinely command the confidence of the House?
Article 164(1) of the Constitution empowers the Governor to appoint the Chief Minister. However, this power is not merely ceremonial. The Governor must be reasonably satisfied that the person invited to form the government is capable of securing majority support in the Assembly. In a hung House, Article 163(1) grants the Governor limited discretionary authority precisely to navigate such uncertain political situations.
This is not an unprecedented interpretation. In Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006), the Supreme Court recognised that the Governor is entitled to consider whether a stable government can realistically be formed. Critics often invoke S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) to argue that majority can only be tested on the floor of the House. However, that judgment dealt primarily with the dismissal of an incumbent government under Article 356 and the imposition of President’s Rule. It did not prohibit a Governor from conducting preliminary verification before appointing a Chief Minister in the first place.
Confusing these two distinct constitutional situations creates an incomplete reading of the law.
Indian political history itself offers several examples where Governors exercised discretion differently depending on circumstances. In Karnataka’s 2004 hung Assembly, despite BJP emerging as the single-largest party, Governor T.N. Chaturvedi invited the Congress-JD(S) coalition after it demonstrated majority support. In 2008, BJP was invited only after showing it could gather additional backing to cross the majority mark. In 2018, the Governor first invited BJP despite post-poll claims by the Congress-JD(S) alliance, but the Supreme Court intervened to ensure an immediate floor test. Eventually, B.S. Yediyurappa resigned before the vote, and the Congress-JD(S) coalition formed the government.
These precedents underline an important point: the constitutional process does not operate on a single rigid formula. Governors are expected to assess political stability while remaining within constitutional boundaries.
There is also a broader democratic concern involved. If a party significantly short of majority is sworn in without demonstrating support beforehand, the period before the floor test can quickly become vulnerable to allegations of political bargaining, defections and pressure tactics. Indian politics has witnessed such episodes repeatedly over decades. Seeking letters of support before swearing-in, therefore, can also be viewed as an attempt to reduce uncertainty and discourage potential horse-trading.
Governor Arlekar’s position, at its core, is relatively straightforward: demonstrate majority support, and the invitation to form government follows. Whether one politically agrees with that approach or not, it is difficult to argue that such a demand falls outside constitutional practice.
In a fractured mandate, constitutional restraint often matters more than political speed. Tamil Nadu’s current situation may remain politically contentious, but asking for prima facie evidence of majority before government formation is not a constitutional crisis. If anything, it reflects the cautious functioning of constitutional institutions during a hung verdict.
