What is the Governor’s role if elections produce fractured verdicts?
What do the Sarkaria Commission recommendations say? What has the Supreme Court ruled on this issue?
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
The formation of the government in Maharashtra following a fractured mandate in the 2019 Assembly elections brought the discretionary powers of the Governor into sharp focus. The Supreme Court's intervention, ordering an immediate floor test to prevent horse-trading, highlights the ongoing tension between executive discretion and judicial review in ensuring democratic norms are upheld.
UPSC Perspectives
Polity
The Constitution mandates that the Governor act on the 'aid and advice' of the Council of Ministers under , except where discretionary powers are explicitly granted. However, in the event of a hung assembly, the appointment of a Chief Minister becomes an area of situational discretion. The Governor must navigate this by exploring government formation possibilities, typically inviting the single largest party or pre-poll alliance first, followed by post-poll coalitions. The crucial caveat is that the appointee must prove their majority on the floor of the House within a stipulated time. This process is guided by conventions and recommendations, notably those of the , which established a preferred order of invitation to ensure the formation of a stable government rather than one aligning with the Governor's political preferences. The Commission emphasizes that the primary objective is to facilitate government formation, not to dictate its policy direction.
Governance
A recurring challenge in fractured mandates is the method of ascertaining a majority. Historically, Governors engaged in controversial practices like headcounts at the Raj Bhavan, leading to accusations of bias and horse-trading (the buying and selling of political allegiances). The consensus, firmly established by the judiciary, is that the floor of the Assembly is the sole constitutionally recognized forum for testing a majority. The reinforces this, recommending a vote of confidence within 30 days for any Chief Minister appointed without a clear majority. Furthermore, if an incumbent's majority is seriously questioned, the Governor is advised to urge the Chief Minister to summon the Assembly under . If the Chief Minister refuses, the Governor possesses the constitutional right to convene the House independently to resolve the doubt, prioritizing the democratic mandate over executive maneuvering.
Legal
The Supreme Court has played a vital role in establishing boundaries for gubernatorial discretion through landmark judgments. The foundational principle was laid in the (1994), which categorically stated that a floor test is the proper and constitutionally ordained method for testing a ministry's strength. Subsequent rulings, such as the (2005), validated the legitimacy of post-poll alliances. The Court has frequently intervened by ordering 'composite floor tests' or expedited floor tests, sometimes even before newly elected legislators have taken their oaths, as seen in Karnataka (2018) and Maharashtra (2019), directing the appointment of a pro tem Speaker to facilitate the process. These interventions aim to protect democratic values and prevent unethical practices, although they continue to raise questions about the delicate balance between judicial review and parliamentary independence.