I urge the people of Tamil Nadu not to comment or act irrationally against the act of Governor. Law is clear and he is following the same. Regards A.vidyasagar D.Navaneethan Advocates Law Fluent Associates

[10/05, 07:13] sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/Ugkx6v1PvlEke8qy85BMVCtITaXIhEi6L4gQ?si=T2V3_svQSqgsKgbA
[10/05, 07:13] sekarreporter1: Legal Framework Governing Hung Assemblies (simply Know the law during Hung Assembly)
In the backdrop of a hung Assembly, it is imperative to clarify that the Constitution of India does not prescribe a rigid timeframe within which the Governor must invite a party or coalition to form the government. This silence in the constitutional text vests the Governor with discretionary authority under Article 164, subject always to the overarching principles of constitutional morality and judicially evolved conventions.
1. Discretion and Reasonable Time The Governor’s discretion is not unfettered; it is circumscribed by the doctrine of “reasonable time.” The constitutional objective is to prevent a governance vacuum. Where consultations fail to yield a viable majority, the Governor may, in exercise of constitutional duty, recommend invocation of Article 356 to avert administrative paralysis.
2. Order of Preference – Sarkaria Guidelines The Governor’s discretion is guided by judicially recognized conventions, notably the Sarkaria Commission’s recommendations, which the Supreme Court has affirmed. The order of preference is:
o Pre poll alliances,
o Single largest party staking claim with support,
o Post poll coalitions, and
o Post poll alliances with external support. This framework ensures that the Governor’s choice is not arbitrary but anchored in tested constitutional practice.
3. Floor Test as the Ultimate Arbiter Once a Chief Minister is appointed, the Governor is duty bound to direct a floor test within a reasonable period—ordinarily 7 to 15 days. In extraordinary circumstances, the Supreme Court has curtailed this period to 24–48 hours to forestall horse trading and uphold democratic integrity. Thus, the Governor’s role is facilitative, not determinative; the Assembly itself is the final judge of majority.
4. Article 164 – Constitutional Foundation Article 164 delineates the Governor’s powers in appointing the Chief Minister and Council of Ministers, subject to collective responsibility to the Legislative Assembly. The “pleasure” doctrine is not personal to the Governor but is co terminous with legislative confidence. The safeguards of cabinet size, collective responsibility, six month rule for non members, and oath of office all reinforce accountability to the House.
5. Current Context – Tamil Nadu, May 2026 In the present scenario, where the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam has fallen marginally short of majority, Governor Rajendra Arlekar’s insistence on demonstrable proof of majority before extending an invitation is squarely within the constitutional framework. His actions are consistent with the principles of reasonable discretion, the Sarkaria guidelines, and the jurisprudence of floor tests. Any perceived delay, if challenged, would be subject to judicial scrutiny, but until such adjudication, the Governor’s conduct remains constitutionally valid.
Finally I Conclude, that The Governor’s role in a hung Assembly is neither ceremonial nor absolute; it is a constitutional balancing act. By insisting upon proof of majority before issuing an invitation, the Governor acts within the scope of Article 164, fortified by precedent and convention. Far from being arbitrary, such conduct exemplifies constitutional prudence, ensuring that governance rests upon demonstrable legislative confidence and thereby upholding the sanctity of representative democracy.

Wherefore, I urge the people of Tamil Nadu not to comment or act irrationally against the act of Governor. Law is clear and he is following the same.
Regards
A.vidyasagar
D.Navaneethan
Advocates
Law Fluent Associates
Supreme court of India