New Delhi: Actor-Politician Victory He is set to meet Tamil Nadu Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar for the third time to stake claim to form the government, after the May 4 decision projected his TVK as the single largest party in the state.From silver-screen superstardom to Chennai’s Fort St George, Vijay has caused the biggest political disruption seen in Tamil Nadu in decades. His two-year-old party, Tamilaga Vetri Kazhagam, swept the assembly with 108 seats, breaking the long-standing DMK-AIADMK dominance that has defined state politics for nearly half a century.The “Thalapathy wave” shook up seasoned Dravidian stalwarts like MK Stalin, O Panneerselvam and Edappadi K Palaniswami. At the age of 51, Vijay transformed from a political newcomer to the biggest force in Tamil Nadu almost overnight, winning both the seats, Perambur and Tiruchirappalli East.Yet, despite historic beginnings, the ultimate leap of power has hit a constitutional wall.TVK’s tally of 108 seats, even with the support of five Congress MLAs, leaves the alliance at 112, still six short of the magic majority mark of 118 in the 234-member assembly.And that difference has now become the focus of Tamil Nadu’s latest political and constitutional clash.
A new political storm has started due to the Governor’s stay.
The big TVK numbers did not sway Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar to call up party boss Vijay, keeping him out of power.Tamil Nadu Governor Arlekar cited “unestablished majority” as the only major reason leading to a constitutional impasse pitting superstar Vijay against the traditional gatekeepers of power in the state.According to sources in news agency PTI, Arlekar called Vijay to Lok Bhawan and sought clarity on the “magic number” required for government formation. He reportedly asked TVK to submit details of MLAs supporting his claim.The Governor’s stance immediately drew sharp reactions from TVK leaders and opposition voices, with many accusing the Raj Bhavan of deliberately stalling the process.State Congress in-charge Girish Chodankar alleged that the Governor is bowing before the BJP instead of the Constitution. Senior advocate and former Congress leader Kapil Sibal accused the Governor of “buying time” to facilitate political manoeuvres.Sibal said, “I was hoping that by now the Governor would have invited TVK to form the government… When the Governor becomes an agent of the BJP, he works on the orders of the BJP.”During this time, AIADMK National spokesperson Kovai Sathyan defended the Governor’s stance and attacked TVK’s claims.“TVK is the one that made the confession, claiming that we are the largest party with 108 seats, and we have the support of 5 more seats. Therefore, the Governor is bound to ask, ‘Where are the other 5?'” Sathyan said.
Can the Governor insist on proof before invitation?
The central constitutional question dominating Tamil Nadu politics is now simple: Can a Governor ask a party to prove majority before inviting it to form the government?Senior advocate and former Delhi High Court Bar Association president Kirti Uppal told TOI that there is no absolute constitutional rule that the governor has to invite the largest party first.“There is no constitutional rule or absolute right that the largest party be invited first. “Largest party” is a political convention, not a binding constitutional mandate,” Uppal said.He pointed to Article 163(2) of the Constitution, which gives discretionary powers to the Governor in certain circumstances.“163(2): If any question arises whether or not any matter is one in respect of which the Governor is required by or under this Constitution to act in his discretion, the decision of the Governor in his discretion shall be final, and the legality of anything done by the Governor shall not be called in question on the ground that he should or should not have acted in his discretion.”Uppal further argued that a floor test is the ultimate democratic method to determine majority.He said, “The Governor can order a floor test at any time, be it before the formation of the government or during the tenure of the cabinet. After all, the floor test is considered the supreme democratic method to test the majority of the government in the House.”However, another Supreme Court lawyer, Vivek Narayan Sharma, offered a completely different explanation.“The Governor cannot insist on a floor test before inviting a party to form the government. The floor test is constitutionally meant to test the majority of an already appointed government, not to determine who is appointed in the first place,” the lawyer told TOI.“The role of the Governor at the invitation stage is only prima facie satisfaction, not a conclusive decision. The Governor can conduct prima facie scrutiny through letters of support or alliance claims, but cannot insist on a ‘first prove majority, then I will appoint you’ approach as if Raj Bhavan itself is the floor of the House.”
What do the Constitution and the Supreme Court say?
The debate over the powers of the Governor in hung assemblies is not new.Under Article 164(1), the Constitution states that the Chief Minister is appointed by the Governor, but it does not specify the order in which parties or coalitions should be invited.Constitutional experts say the role of the Governor is to objectively determine who is best able to command the confidence of the House. He may be:
- the biggest party
- pre-poll alliance
- post election alliance
- Any other group that can demonstrate majority support
A big example came to light after the 2017 Goa Assembly elections. Congress emerged as the largest party, but then Governor Mridula Sinha invited the BJP after receiving letters of support from allies and showing majority support.In Chandrakant Kavlekar vs. Union of India case, when the matter reached the Supreme Court, the court did not overturn the Governor’s decision. Instead, it ordered an immediate floor test.Similar situations played out in the 2017 Manipur Assembly elections and the 2018 Meghalaya Assembly elections, where the Congress emerged as the largest party, but the BJP-backed alliance was invited as it demonstrated better majority numbers.The constitutional debate intensified during the 2018 Karnataka government formation controversy and the 2019 Maharashtra government formation crisis, where questions over the discretion of governors reached the Supreme Court.Karnataka in 2018, when the BJP emerged as the largest party with 104 seats, but was far from a majority.Congress and JD(S) immediately formed an alliance after the elections and claimed that they had enough numbers to form the government.Despite this, the then Governor Vajubhai Vala first invited BJP leader BS Yediyurappa to form the government and asked him to prove majority in the Assembly.This move sparked a constitutional controversy and reached the Supreme Court. The court ordered immediate floor test. Before the voting took place, Yediyurappa resigned as he could not muster enough support. Later the Congress-JD(S) alliance formed the government under the leadership of HD Kumaraswamy.Another landmark case that is often mentioned is Rameshwar Prasad vs. Union of India. The Supreme Court said preference is generally given to a contender that is able to demonstrate majority support, such as a coalition, over the largest party that lacks numerical strength.The court also made it clear that the Governor cannot reject the claims of the majority merely on the basis of doubt as to how the alliance was formed.
TVK is racing for numbers according to discussions with partners
As the situation is progressing constitutionally, TVK has made more efforts to gather smaller parties like VCK and Left, both of which have 2 members each.TVK joint general secretary CTR Nirmal Kumar met Communist Party of India leaders in Chennai, seeking support for a “progressive government”.CPI leader M Veerapandian confirmed that Vijay has formally written to the party seeking support and said an emergency executive meeting has been called.Thol Thirumavalavan has also urged the Governor to invite Vijay to form the government and prove his majority in the Assembly.Meanwhile, CPM general secretary MA Baby questioned the delay in the Governor’s invitation and said the party would take the final decision after discussions with the Governor. DMK.
Tension in Congress-DMK relations
The political churning has also shaken one of the oldest alliances in Tamil Nadu.Congress’s decision to support TVK has deeply strained its relations with the DMK, with DMK leaders accusing the Congress of betrayal and terming the party a “backstabber”.The DMK legislature party passed a resolution condemning the Congress’s “sudden political change”, while party leaders pointed out that the Congress had benefited electorally from the alliance in the previous elections.DMK MP Kalanidhi Veeraswamy claimed that the TVK is “desperate” and alleged that the Congress had switched sides after being promised a ministerial berth.
Beyond the numbers, a bigger federalism debate
The standoff has once again revived Tamil Nadu’s long-running tensions with the governor’s office and broader questions about the country’s federalism.The debate echoes recent comments by Supreme Court judge Justice BV Nagarathna, who said states are “not subordinate to the Centre, but coordinate units within the constitutional scheme.”The Tamil Nadu standoff is seen not only as a numbers game, but also as part of a larger national debate on gubernatorial discretion, cooperative federalism and the balance of power between elected governments and constitutional offices.Vijay has already changed the politics of Tamil Nadu. Can he now overcome the final governor hurdle and turn the disruption into government, is the question that could define the next political era of the state.
