When the Governor wants Receipts: The wrong kind of Proof in a Hung Assembly
As actor Vijay swears in as Tamil Nadu’s chief minister following days of uncertainty, we look back upon whether the Governor can actually act as an authority certifying legislative confidence despite prima facie proof of majority support. Could statutory clarity on the sequence of government formation avoid future instances of such ‘receipt constitutionalism’?
Rohan Mehta
Published on: 10 May 2026, 12:34 pm
EARLIER TODAY, actor-turned politician Joseph Vijay was sworn in as Tamil Nadu’s new chief minister following days of uncertainty across an election season that has given analysts across the country much to talk about. Vijay’s storming win against the AIADMK & DMK duopoly, with his party securing 108 seats in a 234-member Tamil Nadu assembly was one of the year’s most discussed electoral verdicts. On May 6, Congress, with five more seats, had announced support. But Vijay had won from two constituencies, and once one seat was vacated, TVK’s effective legislative strength fell to 107. On that arithmetic, TVK plus Congress stood at 112, six short of 118, the number required to form Government in Tamil Nadu.
Being the single largest party, Vijay attempted to form the government but the Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar had declined to invite Vijay on multiple visits in the past few days, stating that he needed documentary support adding up to 118 MLAs before any oath was administered. His stated condition as of Friday, May 8, as India Today had reported, was letters showing “108, plus these 5, plus these 7 seats, and that makes 118”, a formulation that yields 120 by ordinary arithmetic. Finally, on Saturday night, following support from four parties – Communist Party of India (CPI), Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M), Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) and Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) – Vijay received an appointment letter. Maths aside, more important is the onus placed here and power assumed by the Governor. It also reads in a requirement of individualized, Raj Bhavan-certified proof from MLAs reaching the majority mark, before any oath is taken.
The argument I make is that once a claimant produces credible material which, taken at face value, shows majority support, the Governor cannot convert Raj Bhavan into a private forum for certifying legislative confidence. I will call this ‘receipt constitutionalism’: the idea that constitutional legitimacy in a hung House depends not on a prompt public vote but on private documentary receipts collected and certified by Raj Bhavan.
To establish this, I draw a distinction between three kinds of proof in government formation, which clarifies both what the Governor may legitimately ask for and what he is actually demanding. I also examine the constitutional text and the June 1949 Constituent Assembly debates on draft Article 144 establish that “pleasure” in Article 164(1) of the Constitution is conditioned on majority confidence. The judicial doctrine, stemming from cases such as S.R.Bommai (1994) to Shivraj Singh Chouhan (2020), structures the Governor’s appointment function. The comparative practice of Westminster systems closes the argument before a brief word on codification.
