Context
Recently, the results of the 2026 Legislative Assembly elections in Tamil Nadu have led to discussions regarding a “Hung Assembly” and the subsequent role of the Governor. In Tamil Nadu, the emergence of the TVK as a significant player alongside established Dravidian parties has created a scenario where no single party or pre-poll alliance secured an absolute majority.
1. Definition
A Hung Assembly is a situation in a multi-party system, following an election, where no single political party or pre-poll alliance achieves an absolute majority (i.e., more than $50\%$ of the total seats) in the legislature. While the term is not expressly defined in the Constitution of India, it is a functional political state that triggers the discretionary powers of the Head of State (Governor at the State level, President at the Union level).
2. Constitutional Provisions
- Article 164(1): Stipulates that the Chief Minister shall be appointed by the Governor. In a clear majority scenario, this is a formal act; in a hung assembly, it becomes a discretionary act.
- Article 163: Provides the Governor with discretionary powers. Unlike the President, the Governor has a wider ambit of situational discretion, as the Constitution explicitly mentions “except in so far as he is… required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion.”
3. Order of Preference (As per Sarkaria Commission)
When no party has a clear majority, the Governor should follow a specific order of preference to ensure a stable government:
- Pre-poll Alliance: The group of parties that contested the elections together.
- Single Largest Party (SLP): The party with the most seats, claiming support from others (including independents).
- Post-poll Coalition: A new alliance formed after the results, where all partners join the government.
- Post-poll Alliance: Where some parties join the government and others support it from the outside.
4. Judicial and Committee Guidelines
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): The Supreme Court ruled that the “floor of the house” is the only place to test a majority, not the Governor’s subjective opinion.
- Punchhi Commission (2007): Recommended that in case of a post-poll alliance, the Governor should invite the alliance only if it has a clear leader and a common minimum program.
- Rameshwar Prasad Case (2006): Asserted that if a Governor is convinced that no party can form a stable government, they can recommend the dissolution of the house, but such a decision is subject to judicial review.
5. The Floor Test
The Governor usually gives the appointed Chief Minister a specific timeframe (often 15 to 30 days) to prove their majority through a Vote of Confidence. If the CM fails, the Governor may invite the next eligible leader or recommend President’s Rule under Article 356 due to the failure of constitutional machinery.
Q. With reference to a ‘Hung Assembly’ in the Indian parliamentary system, consider the following statements:
1. The term ‘Hung Assembly’ is explicitly defined under Article 164 of the Constitution of India.
2. According to the S.R. Bommai case, the Governor’s assessment of a party's majority is final and cannot be challenged in a court of law.
3. The Sarkaria Commission suggested that a pre-poll alliance should be given higher priority over the single largest party during government formation.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 3 only
(c) 1 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2, and 3
Solution: (b)
• STATEMENT 1 IS INCORRECT: The term "Hung Assembly" is a political convention and is not defined anywhere in the Constitution.
• STATEMENT 2 IS INCORRECT: The S.R. Bommai judgment established that the majority must be proved on the floor of the house, and the Governor’s action (specifically recommending President’s Rule) is subject to judicial review.
• STATEMENT 3 IS CORRECT: The Sarkaria Commission explicitly listed the pre-poll alliance as the first preference for the Governor when inviting a leader to form the government.
