ROLE OF GOVERNOR IN HUNG ASSEMBLY

Governor’s Role In The Hung Assembly: An Overview

Saurabh Kumar Yadav

Introduction
No right is more precious in a free country than that of having voice in the election of those
who make the laws under which we must live. A governor is charged with the duty to preserve
protect and defend the constitution and has a concomitant duty and obligation to preserve
democracy and not to permit the canker of political defections to tear into the vitals of Indian
democracy. In a democracy, the proper representation of public interest is of supreme
importance1.. If a political party with the support of other party or other MLAs, stakes claim
to form a government and satisfies the governor about its majority to form a stable government,
the governor cannot refuse formation of government and override the majority claim because
of his subjective assessment that majority was cobbled by illegal and unethical means 2. No
such power has been vested with the governor. Such a power would be against the democratic
principles of majority rule 3. Governor is not an autocratic political ombudsman4. If such a
power is vested in the governor then the consequence can be horrendous. Governor was bound
to first invite the single- largest party after a general election to form a government and give it
a definite period of time to prove its majority in the house. “If it fails, the governor can give
other parties a chance to form a government.

1
Chandrakant Kavlekar v. Union of India (2017) 3 SCC 758
2
Rameshwar Prasad & Ors. v. Union of India AIR 2006 SC 652
3
Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker AIR 2016 SC 694

1
 ROLE OF GOVERNOR IN HUNG ASSEMBLY

Legal Provision of Governor’s Role In Inviting Chief Ministers-

There are no specific guidelines in the constitution on what the governor should do or whom
he invites in case there is a coalition allies. Article 164(1) provides that chief minister shall be
appointed by the governor and other Minister’s shall be appointed by the governor on the
advice of the chief minister, and ministers shall hold office during the pleasure of the governor5.
According to Article 164(2), the council of ministers shall be collectively responsible to the
legislative assembly of the state6. Article 164(1) does not supply any further details as to whom
the governor shall invite as the Chief Minister.

Sarkaria Commission Report (1983)

Sarkaria Commission was setup in June 1983 under the chairmanship of justice R.S Sarkaria7
for the recommendations in case of hung assembly. The commission report details the options
before the governor in the situation where no single party has obtained an absolute majority.

The order of preference for the governor in such case is:

1. An alliance of parties that was formed prior to the elections.

2. The single largest party staking a claim to form a government with the support of the
others, including independents.
3. A post -electoral coalition of parties, with all the partners in the coalition joining the
government.
4. A post electoral alliance of parties, with some the parties in the alliance forming a
government and the remaining parties, including independents, supporting the
government from outside.

Punchhi commission report (2010)-

This report extensively refers to Sarkaria commission report this report states that there have
been judicial opinions and recommendations of expert commission in the past on the question
of governor’s role in the appointment of chief minister in the of a hung assembly. However,
the commission kill this discussion by stating that if specific guidelines are not laid down with
regard to determining the claims of a post poll alliance it would result in ambiguity and the

5
Art. 164(1) of Indian Constitution
6
Art. 164(2) of Indian Constitution
7
R.S Sarkaria Chairman of Sarkaria Commission Report (1983)

2
 ROLE OF GOVERNOR IN HUNG ASSEMBLY

governor would follow the stabilise convention of inviting the single largest party to form the
government.

The Karnataka Political Crisis:

The same controversy happened in Karnataka where governor in a surprisingly manner invited
other party to stake their claims, In Karnataka there were 222 of the seats. A party or coalition
needed the support of 112 members to have simple majority. the congress which won 78 seats
extended unconditional support to Janta dal with a 37seats to form and head the government.
But governor invited BS Yeddyurappa leader of the single largest party, BJP to form the
government, though their was absolutely no evidence of him having the sufficient numbers.
The congress JD(S) challenged the governor decision in the supreme court to set aside the
governor decision to invite the Yeddyurappa. Supreme court directed conduction of the floor
test and order a live telecast of it, soon after, chief minister Yeddyurappa resigned, the governor
then invited the congress- JD(S) alliance to form the government, and Kumaraswamy take as
chief minister on May 23.

Arunachal Pradesh Political Crisis:

Arunachal Pradesh experienced a constitutional crisis between November 2015 and 2016. In
the Arunachal Pradesh the governor without consulting the chief minister or speaker pre -poned
the next session of the assembly, and in the next session governor removed the speaker and his
office was declared vacant. On the next day governor removed chief minister Nabam Tuki and
appointed Kalikho Pul as chief minister. Nabam Rebia moved after dismal of case moved to
Supreme court. The bench with majority judgment held “governor is not an all pervading- super
constitutional authority.” Governor is not an elected representative but an executive nominee
whose power flow from the aid and advice of the cabinet, using discretionary power without
the aid and advice of chief minister is unconstitutional.

3
 ROLE OF GOVERNOR IN HUNG ASSEMBLY

CONCLUSION

The governor is the constitutional head of the state government. Governor is not an autocratic
political ombudsman. Governor was bound to first invite the single- largest party after a general
election to form a government and give it a definite period of time to prove its majority in the
house. No such power has been vested with the governor. Such a power would be against the
democratic principles of majority rule. “If it fails, the governor can give other parties a chance
to form a government. If a political party with the support of other party or other MLAs, stakes
claim to form a government and satisfies the governor about its majority to form a stable
government, the governor cannot refuse formation of government and override the majority
claim because of his subjective assessment that majority was cobbled by illegal and unethical
means.