By asking Vijay to produce letters of majority support before inviting him to form the government, the governor risks overstepping established Constitutional principles, notes Harishchandra.
Key Points
- Restoring democratic confidence in India requires more than the mere conduct of elections; it requires faith in the fairness and neutrality of the institutions that oversee them.
- Constitutional principles cannot be selectively applied.
- The same Constitution invoked to urge Mamata Banerjee to vacate office also binds governors to act impartially and within established democratic conventions.
The elections in five states delivered four decisive outcomes and one ambiguous verdict.
The decisive results were the Bharatiya Janata Party's sweeping victories in Assam and West Bengal, the National Democratic Alliance's win in Puducherry, and the United Democratic Front's triumph in Kerala.
Tamil Nadu, however, produced a more complicated mandate. No party secured an outright majority, though the newcomer Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam emerged as the single largest party with 108 seats in the 234-member Assembly, just 10 short of the halfway mark.
The long-dominant Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam were relegated to second and third place respectively.
In West Bengal, outgoing Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee reacted defiantly to the result, declaring that she would not resign and daring the governor to 'dismiss' her instead.
She alleged that the elections were rigged, particularly because of the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, which reportedly led to the deletion of nearly 10 million names.
There is little doubt that disenfranchising such a vast number of citizens raises serious questions for Indian democracy.
The Election Commission may argue that many of the deleted names belonged to fraudulent voters -- illegal migrants, deceased individuals, or those who had moved away.
Yet India's democratic ethos rests on a simple principle: Innocence until proven guilty. By that logic, a voter remains a legitimate voter until due process establishes otherwise.
To strike nearly 97 lakh names from the rolls en masse, and then for the Supreme Court to suggest that affected individuals may vote 'next time' if later found eligible, amounts to the denial of a citizen's most fundamental democratic right.
It is difficult not to view this as one of the judiciary's more troubling recent interventions -- one that may, like several controversial judgments in India's past, be reassessed with regret only years after the damage is done.
Concerns about the health of Indian democracy extend well beyond voter-roll revisions. Questions persist over the use of electronic voting machines, which many advanced democracies avoid because of fears of tampering.
In India, scepticism persists because of a simple public perception: If a system can be manipulated, many will assume that it eventually will be.
There are also longstanding concerns about the deployment of central investigative agencies against Opposition leaders, often creating political pressure that drives defections toward the BJP.
Restoring democratic confidence in India requires more than the mere conduct of elections; it requires faith in the fairness and neutrality of the institutions that oversee them.
Mamata's Defiance Draws Criticism
Yet Mamata Banerjee's response also invites criticism. Having contested the election vigorously and participated fully in the democratic process, her refusal to step aside after defeat appears graceless and politically counterproductive.
Strictly speaking, the Constitution does not require an outgoing chief minister to resign immediately after an electoral defeat.
That convention evolved as part of democratic etiquette and respect for constitutional morality.
Constitutionally, the West Bengal assembly's term extends for five years from its first sitting on May 8, 2021, meaning the term concluded on May 7, 2026. By that measure, Banerjee's tenure ended that day.
Banerjee may believe that a posture of defiance will energise her supporters. But nationally, it risks diminishing her stature.
For many Indians, she remains among the few Opposition leaders with the political instinct and resilience to challenge the BJP at the national level.
At 71, she may require broader alliances and support, but she continues to possess the determination that has defined her political career.
Precisely for that reason, she would do better to step aside with dignity rather than invite a Constitutional confrontation.
Vijay's Majority Must Be Tested
Meanwhile, in Tamil Nadu, Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar appears to be engaging in Constitutional brinkmanship of his own.
By asking Vijay to produce letters of majority support before inviting him to form the government, the governor risks overstepping established Constitutional principles.
The Supreme Court's landmark judgment in the 1994 S R Bommai case made it clear that questions of legislative majority must ordinarily be tested on the floor of the assembly, not in the governor's office.
As the leader of the single largest party, Vijay should be invited to take oath as chief minister and given an opportunity to prove his majority in the House.
Only if he fails should the governor explore alternative arrangements, including inviting a coalition that can demonstrate majority support.
Constitutional principles cannot be selectively applied. The same Constitution invoked to urge Mamata Banerjee to vacate office also binds governors to act impartially and within established democratic conventions.
The rules, ultimately, must apply equally to everyone.
Feature Presentation: Aslam Hunani/Rediff
© 2026