It was a constitutionally valid and normal step for Vijay, the leader of Tamil Nadu’s largest single party, Tamilaga Vetri Kazhagam, to meet the Governor and stake a claim to form a cabinet. However, Governor Rajendra Arlekar’s insistence that he would not allow the oath-taking ceremony without the support of the 118 MLAs required to prove a majority created uncertainty. Although the crisis was resolved when political parties with a more democratic mindset than the Governor came forward to support him, the Governor’s stubbornness raises many doubts. Despite Vijay meeting him twice within 24 hours and requesting an opportunity to take the oath, there was concern among TVK workers that the Governor’s failure to permit it was an attempt to create an opportunity to subvert the will of the people. The Congress and the Left, allies of the DMK, disagreed with the Governor’s approach. CPM national general secretary M. A. Baby reacted by saying that the Governor’s action was anti-democratic and disrespectful of public sentiment.
Politics in Tamil Nadu has for quite some time been a battleground between the Governor and the government. The confrontations between former Governor R. N. Ravi and the M. K. Stalin government had led to intense discussions on federalism. The dispute became a classic example of how the office of the Governor is allegedly being misused to undermine federalism in Hindutva-driven India. The fact that the matter eventually reached the Supreme Court of India and resulted in verdicts by various Constitution Benches marks a significant milestone in the country’s contemporary legal battles and debates surrounding federalism. The steps taken by the new Governor were likely to push Tamil Nadu into another similar dispute.
Apart from ensuring a stable government, the Governor’s duty is to respect the dignity of the legislature and the will of the people. It is noteworthy that legal experts have criticised the Governor for violating the Constitution in the name of excessive caution, describing it as tantamount to contempt for the election verdict. It has become common for Governors to forget the dignity of their office and become part of political horse-trading under BJP rule. Rajendra Arlekar was among those who played a crucial role in the BJP leadership in Goa when the Congress was unable to form the government despite having majority support. He is seen as being committed to advancing RSS political interests through the Raj Bhavans of Kerala and Tamil Nadu.
The Supreme Court of India made it clear in the landmark S. R. Bommai v. Union of India judgment that the will of the people is represented by elected assemblies, not by the Governor. The confidence of elected representatives should be tested through a vote of confidence in the Legislative Assembly, not in the Raj Bhavan courtyard or through letters handed to the Governor. The Governor has taken an unconstitutional path. Prominent legal experts such as Mukul Rohatgi, former Attorney General under the BJP government, have strongly argued that the largest party should be invited to form the government and that its majority should not have to be proved at the Raj Bhavan.
When the office of the Governor becomes a ‘remote control’ of the Centre, the spirit of federalism is destroyed. The Sarkaria Commission report, the Punchhi Commission recommendations, and various Supreme Court judgments all regard the Governor as an aide to the legislature, not its master. The responsibility for ensuring the stability of the government does not lie solely with the Governor. The Assembly and the confidence vote held there are the forums through which governmental stability is ensured. That is the correct democratic position. There is a strong suspicion today that letters of support are being sought in advance not to prevent political horse-trading, but to subvert the will of the people. Vijay became Chief Minister by winning his first contest with the Governor and paving the way for the oath-taking by securing letters of support from MLAs.