Former Attorney General of India Mukul Rohatgi said the Tamil Nadu Governor should have invited Vijay to form the government as the single-largest party.
The dispute centers on the interpretation of constitutional conventions during a hung assembly. If the deadlock continues, the state could face President's Rule or the necessity of fresh elections.
Rohatgi, a senior advocate, backed the claim made by Vijay, the chief of the Tamil Nadu party TVK. He said the Governor ignored established norms by not first inviting the leader of the party with the most seats to attempt to form a government [1, 2].
"It is not a constitutional crisis situation, according to me; it is an artificial crisis," Rohatgi said [1].
According to reports, Vijay's party currently holds 107 MLAs [3]. However, the majority threshold required to govern the Tamil Nadu assembly is 118 MLAs [3]. The Governor has reportedly insisted on this majority threshold before inviting a leader to form a government [3].
Rohatgi said that Vijay has the grounds to challenge the Governor's decision in court [2]. He said the current situation is a result of a failure to follow the standard process of inviting the largest party first, regardless of whether they have reached the majority mark immediately.
Legal experts remain divided on the issue. Some argue the Governor must prioritize the single-largest party, while others suggest the Governor has the discretion to invite any leader who can demonstrate a clear path to a majority [1, 3].
“"It is not a constitutional crisis situation, according to me; it is an artificial crisis."”
This deadlock highlights a recurring tension in Indian state politics between the discretionary powers of the Governor and the democratic mandate of the single-largest party. If a court intervenes, the ruling could further clarify the legal obligations of Governors in hung assemblies, potentially limiting their ability to bypass the largest party in favor of coalition-building efforts.
