UPSC MainsGeneral Studies Paper IIIndian PolityPractice question

Governor Role in Hung Assembly and Federalism

Discuss the role of the Governor during a hung Assembly. How does the misuse of the Governor's discretionary powers raise concerns for democracy and federalism in India?

Discuss~250 words2 min readmedium
Attempt it first, timed · optional

Write the answer on paper, as in the exam. Start the timer, keep to the word target.

00:00/ 11 min · 250 words

Done writing? Photograph the sheet and see how it scores against this model answer, with feedback on what to fix.

Upload your answer sheet

How to approach

Begin by defining a hung assembly and the situational discretion granted to the Governor under Articles 164(1) and 174(1). Examine the proper constitutional conventions for government formation, citing relevant commission guidelines and judicial verdicts. Conclude with structural reforms like the Punchhi Commission recommendations to prevent executive arbitrariness.

Model answer

391 words

Introduction

A hung assembly arises when no single political party or pre-poll alliance secures an absolute majority of seats in the legislative assembly following an election. Under Article 164(1) for the appointment of the Chief Minister and Article 174(1) for summoning the House, the Governor exercises situational discretion to facilitate government formation in a fair and non-partisan manner.

Role of the Governor in a Hung Assembly

In the absence of an explicit legislative majority, the Governor is guided by well-established constitutional conventions and judicial precedents rather than personal predilections.

  • Order of Preference: The Governor is expected to follow the structured order of preference recommended by the Sarkaria Commission: first, an alliance of parties formed prior to the polls; second, the single largest party claiming to form the government with support from others; third, a post-poll coalition of parties; and finally, a post-poll alliance where some join the ministry while others extend external support.
  • Primacy of the Floor Test: In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court ruled conclusively that the assessment of majority strength must take place exclusively on the floor of the Legislative Assembly, not via subjective headcounts or private assessments conducted inside Raj Bhavan.

Concerns for Democracy and Federalism

The partisan exercise of gubernatorial discretion fundamentally impairs the constitutional machinery.

  • Erosion of Democratic Norms: Arbitrarily inviting a minority claimant or granting prolonged windows before conducting a floor test invites horse-trading and legislative corruption, undermining the spirit of the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law). In Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006), the Supreme Court invalidated the premature dissolution of an assembly that had been based on the Governor's subjective political appraisals.
  • Subversion of Federal Autonomy: When the Governor acts as an active political agent of the Central Government, it disregards the legitimate popular mandate of the State electorate. As reiterated in Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016), the Governor cannot act without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers outside specific constitutional exceptions, nor manipulate legislative proceedings to overturn elected state regimes.

Conclusion

To insulate the high constitutional office from partisan politics, the Punchhi Commission's recommendation to codify a binding procedure for hung assemblies should be adopted. Additionally, institutionalising mandatory floor tests within 24 to 48 hours, as practiced in recent Supreme Court interventions, is essential to protect democratic sanctity and preserve federal trust.

Key facts to remember

case study
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that the floor of the Legislative Assembly is the sole forum to test the majority of an incumbent or prospective government, eliminating subjective gubernatorial discretion.

case study
Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006)

The Supreme Court held the Governor's report recommending assembly dissolution in Bihar unconstitutional, ruling that subjective allegations of horse-trading cannot justify preventing elected legislators from staking a claim.

scheme
Sarkaria Commission Recommendations on Hung Assembly (1988)

Prescribed an order of preference for appointing the Chief Minister: pre-poll alliance, single largest party, followed by post-poll coalitions, with a mandate to hold a floor test within 30 days.

Frequently asked questions

What constitutional discretion does the Governor have under Article 164(1)?

Article 164(1) states the Chief Minister is appointed by the Governor. In a hung assembly, this situational discretion allows the Governor to invite the leader most likely to command majority confidence on the floor of the House.