Governors’ Discretion amounts to ‘Atypical Abuse’ >>>>> ‘Single Largest Party First’ Must be the Best Convention : Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao (May 7, 2026)

 Governors’ Discretion amounts to ‘Atypical Abuse’

‘Single Largest Party First’ Must be the Best Convention

Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao (May 7, 2026)

In either a positive or negative context, in Indian democracy, it is not new to prefer leaders of political parties by Governors at the state level and the President at the centre, irrespective of whether their party won an absolute majority or not, but emerged as the single largest party, either on its own or in an alliance, in a situation where no other party or combination was in the same boat. In the current Tamil Nadu situation, following the May 2026 Assembly elections, Vijay’s Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) has emerged as the clear single largest party.

Despite this historic mandate and securing support from the Congress, which would bring his tally within striking distance of the absolute majority, Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar faced criticism for his perceived delay in inviting Vijay to form the government. Governor's rigid and irrational insistence on physical proof of 118 MLAs before an invitation, obviously in Lok Bhavan, rather than allowing a floor test, is an ‘atypical hurdle’ for a party that so clearly leads all others.

This contemporary friction echoes historical precedents of high-level discretion, such as when President Neelam Sanjiva Reddy invited Charan Singh to form the government in 1979 after the fall of the Morarji Desai ministry. Notably, Reddy took this step only after first exploring the potential of other major parties, including the Congress, to ensure all avenues for a stable majority were exhausted before appointing a leader who lacked an absolute mandate of his own.

The use of Presidential discretion in forming minority governments is most prominently seen in the tenures of PV Narasimha Rao (1991) and Atal Bihari Vajpayee (1996). After the 1991 elections, the Congress emerged as the single largest party with 232 seats, significantly short of the 272-majority mark. President R Venkataraman exercised his discretion to invite PV, following a precedent he evolved: in a hung Parliament, parties should be invited in order of their strength without the President prejudging their viability.

PV successfully managed this minority government for a full term.  In a similar exercise of discretion, President Shankar Dayal Sharma invited Vajpayee, as the leader of the largest party (BJP), to form the government. However, unlike PV, Vajpayee could not secure support and resigned after just 13 days. These instances highlight a shift from the Governor-level ‘atypical abuse’ seen in states to a more structured, though still debated, ‘largest party first’ convention at the Centre. 

The first instance in independent India where a party not securing an absolute majority was allowed to form a government was the Indian National Congress in the then Madras State in 1952 following Assembly Elections. C Rajagopalachari (Rajaji), was appointed in April by Governor Sri Prakasa, as Chief Minister, engineering defections and support shifts. Rajaji’s appointment was the extraordinary use of gubernatorial discretion, which experts considered the first major ‘Constitutional Impropriety’ in independent India. Interestingly Rajaji did not contest the elections and was not a member of upper house too.

To make him eligible as CM, Sri Prakasa nominated him as MLC under provisions meant for experts in fields like literature and social service. The Governor argued that his primary task was to ensure a stable government was formed, and he did not even consult Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. The primary motivation then, was to prevent a coalition led by the Communist Party of India (CPI) from taking power. Rajaji eventually won a vote of confidence three months later, which was the first time such a motion was moved in an Indian legislature.

The second significant instance of a party without an absolute majority forming a government occurred in Travancore Cochin in March 1952, just months after the Madras case. Similar to the Madras election, the first general election for the Travancore-Cochin Legislative Assembly resulted in a fractured verdict.  The Indian National Congress won 44 out of 108 seats, falling well short of a majority.

The Leftist United Front of Communists and Socialists emerged as a powerful bloc. To prevent the rise of the Communist Party, the minority Congress was allowed to form a coalition government with the Travancore Tamil Nadu Congress (TTNC) and independents. AJ John was sworn in as Chief Minister on March 12, 1952. 

While Madras is often remembered for Rajaji's individual manoeuvring, Travancore-Cochin was one of the earliest examples of a formal coalition where smaller regional parties (like the TTNC) held the balance of power. This minority-led arrangement was notoriously unstable. The government eventually fell in 1953 when the TTNC withdrew support over linguistic issues, leading to the dissolution of the assembly and fresh elections in 1954.

The third significant instance of a minority government formation in independent India occurred in PEPSU (Patiala and East Punjab States Union) in April 1952. Following the general elections for the 60-seat PEPSU Legislative Assembly, no single party reached the 31-seat threshold required for a majority. While the Indian National Congress (INC) with 26 seats emerged as the single largest party, it failed to secure an absolute majority, leading to the formation of the first-ever non-Congress government in a state in independent India.

The Akali Dal secured 19 seats. On April 22, 1952, Gian Singh Rarewala formed the government by stitching together a coalition called the United Democratic Front (UDF). This front was supported by the Akali Dal, CPI, Lal Communist Party, and various independents. Gian Singh Rarewala became the first non-Congress Chief Minister in independent India. Notably, he was also the uncle of the Maharaja of Patiala, who was serving as the state's Raj Pramukh (Governor).

The government relied on ‘conditional support’ from ideological opposites like the Communists and Akalis, making it inherently fragile. The Rarewala ministry faced constant threats of defection and internal friction. On March 5, 1953, his government was dismissed, and President's Rule was imposed, marking another historic first as the first time Article 356 was used to dismiss a state government.

Following the 1982 Haryana Legislative Assembly election, in one of the most cited examples of ‘Atypical Discretion,’ Governor GD Tapase invited the Indian National Congress to form the government despite a clear majority claim by an opposition alliance. In the 90-seat assembly, the Congress won 36 seats, while the Lok Dal-BJP alliance secured 37.

With support from independents, the Lok Dal leader, Devi Lal, presented 45 MLAs to the Governor as proof of a majority. Initially Devi Lal was asked to prove his strength on the floor, the Governor unexpectedly swore in Congress leader Bhajan Lal 24 hours earlier the offer given to Devi Lal. Governor justified his move on the ground that, Congress was the single largest party. Critics viewed it as a blatant manoeuvre allowing Congress to engineer defections.

Following the 2005 assembly elections, In the 81-seat assembly for Jharkhand, the BJP-led NDA secured exact majority mark), while the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) and its allies were far behind. Surprisingly, the Governor Syed Sibte Razi invited JMM leader Shibu Soren to form the government. He gave Soren a long window to prove his majority, despite the NDA physically presenting their 41 MLAs at the Raj Bhavan to demonstrate their strength.

 The Supreme Court had to step in, ordering an expedited floor test and a video recording of the proceedings. Shibu Soren resigned after failing to gather support, and the NDA leader was eventually sworn in. These series of events in Madras, Travancore-Cochin, PEPSU, Haryana, Jharkhand, (as also PV, Vajpayee) etc. collectively established the early templates for minority governance and Governor’s use of discretionary powers to manage state-level political instability. These cases, alongside the 1994 SR Bommai case led to the firm convention that a government's majority must be tested on the floor of the House, not in the Governor's private chambers.