<p>Political uncertainty prevails in Tamil Nadu regarding the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) forming the new government in the state. Governor Rajendra Arlekar’s insistence that the TVK – the single-largest party after the April elections – produce evidence for its majority in the Assembly lacks constitutional grounding and may have set a wrong precedent. </p><p>By Friday, when the TVK mustered more support from other parties, including the Congress, TVK chief Vijay had already visited the Lok Bhavan three times to stake his claim. Instead of stalling the TVK, Arlekar could have followed examples set by the nation’s presidents and governors of other states. The assumption behind requiring evidence of a majority is that the Governor must be satisfied with the government’s support in the House. However, this assumption lacks legal or constitutional merit.</p>.<p class="bodytext">When no other party has staked its claim, the Governor is incumbent to invite the leader of the largest party to form the government. Precedents support this, including the case of Atal Bihari Vajpayee at the national level in 1996, and cases involving B S Yediyurappa in Karnataka, Devendra Fadnavis in Maharashtra, and leaders in other states. In constitutional terms, the stability of the incoming government should not concern the Governor – a minority government under P V Narasimha Rao went on to complete its full 1991-96 term. Article 164(1) states that the chief minister shall be appointed by the Governor, and Article 164(2) mandates that the “council of ministers shall be collectively responsible to the legislative assembly.” There is no implicit or explicit condition of majority support. Courts have ruled in several cases that the “pleasure” of the Governor is not subjective.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Arlekar’s actions amounted to testing the support of a government in the Lok Bhavan. Courts have ruled that such tests should only be held on the floor of the House. The convention is for the Governor to swear the chief minister in and demand that the majority be proved within a stipulated time. The script may have followed a political direction. For the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led Centre, a state government led by alliance partner All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) may hold appeal. However, such a move would have been unethical. Constitutional and political justice demand that Vijay be invited to form the government, regardless of whether he secures the necessary support in the House.</p>
<p>Political uncertainty prevails in Tamil Nadu regarding the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) forming the new government in the state. Governor Rajendra Arlekar’s insistence that the TVK – the single-largest party after the April elections – produce evidence for its majority in the Assembly lacks constitutional grounding and may have set a wrong precedent. </p><p>By Friday, when the TVK mustered more support from other parties, including the Congress, TVK chief Vijay had already visited the Lok Bhavan three times to stake his claim. Instead of stalling the TVK, Arlekar could have followed examples set by the nation’s presidents and governors of other states. The assumption behind requiring evidence of a majority is that the Governor must be satisfied with the government’s support in the House. However, this assumption lacks legal or constitutional merit.</p>.<p class="bodytext">When no other party has staked its claim, the Governor is incumbent to invite the leader of the largest party to form the government. Precedents support this, including the case of Atal Bihari Vajpayee at the national level in 1996, and cases involving B S Yediyurappa in Karnataka, Devendra Fadnavis in Maharashtra, and leaders in other states. In constitutional terms, the stability of the incoming government should not concern the Governor – a minority government under P V Narasimha Rao went on to complete its full 1991-96 term. Article 164(1) states that the chief minister shall be appointed by the Governor, and Article 164(2) mandates that the “council of ministers shall be collectively responsible to the legislative assembly.” There is no implicit or explicit condition of majority support. Courts have ruled in several cases that the “pleasure” of the Governor is not subjective.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Arlekar’s actions amounted to testing the support of a government in the Lok Bhavan. Courts have ruled that such tests should only be held on the floor of the House. The convention is for the Governor to swear the chief minister in and demand that the majority be proved within a stipulated time. The script may have followed a political direction. For the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led Centre, a state government led by alliance partner All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) may hold appeal. However, such a move would have been unethical. Constitutional and political justice demand that Vijay be invited to form the government, regardless of whether he secures the necessary support in the House.</p>
