CURRENT AFFAIRS | MAY 8, 2026
The Supreme Court of India has upheld the right of a Governor to demand majority proof from a party leader before administering the oath of office as Chief Minister. The ruling, arising in the context of Tamil Nadu politics involving TVK leader Vijay Kazhagam, reaffirms the constitutional framework governing government formation in Indian states.
Article 163 establishes the Council of Ministers to aid and advise the Governor, while Article 164 grants the Governor the power to appoint the Chief Minister. The Governor is not bound to appoint anyone who cannot demonstrate majority support. Article 174 empowers the Governor to summon and dissolve the state legislature. Article 361 shields the Governor from court proceedings during tenure, while the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law, 52nd Amendment 1985) penalises legislators who switch sides after the vote.
What Happened?
The Supreme Court held that the Tamil Nadu Governor retains independent discretion under Article 164 to demand that TVK leader Vijay Kazhagam prove his majority before being sworn in as Chief Minister. The court distinguished between purely ministerial acts (where the Governor must follow Cabinet advice) and genuine constitutional discretion situations — such as when no party has a clear majority. The bench simultaneously raised questions about the 2023 Election Commissioner Appointment Law, signalling continuing judicial vigilance over constitutional institutions.
Key Cases You Must Know
- Nabam Rebia v Deputy Speaker (2016): The Supreme Court definitively settled the floor test doctrine — a government must prove majority on the floor of the house. The Governor can order a floor test.
- Shamsher Singh v State of Punjab (1974): The SC held that the Governor must ordinarily act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, but retains discretion in specific constitutional situations.
- Rameshwar Prasad v Union of India (2006): The SC held that even dissolution of the assembly before swearing-in is subject to judicial review.
- SR Bommai v Union of India (1994): Strength of a government must be tested on the floor of the house, not in the Governor’s office.
CLAT Legal Reasoning passages frequently feature government formation disputes. Key distinctions: (1) The Governor must act on Council of Ministers’ advice — but only once a government is formed. Before formation, discretion exists. (2) A floor test is democratic; it cannot be replaced by private claims of majority. (3) Anti-defection under the Tenth Schedule operates differently from a floor test — defection removes an MLA’s seat, floor test removes the government. Watch for questions on composite floor test (when two groups simultaneously claim majority) vs. simple floor test.
| Provision | Subject |
| Art. 163 | Council of Ministers to aid and advise Governor |
| Art. 164 | Appointment and tenure of Chief Minister |
| Art. 174 | Power to summon, prorogue and dissolve legislature |
| Art. 361 | Immunity of Governor from court proceedings |
| 10th Schedule | Anti-defection law (52nd Amendment, 1985) |
| Nabam Rebia (2016) | Floor test is the constitutional method |
| Shamsher Singh (1974) | Governor acts on advice; discretion is exception |
Governor appoints (Art. 164) — Advice of CoM governs (Art. 163) — Floor test is the democracy check (Nabam Rebia) — Defection disqualifies (10th Schedule) — Trust vote = confidence motion. The Governor demands proof of majority; the Speaker decides anti-defection — these are two separate processes.
Practice Quiz — 10 CLAT-Style Questions
Click an option to reveal the answer and explanation.
