Compare the role of the head of state in government formation in a hung parliament in India and Israel. How far is presidential discretion constrained by convention?

In parliamentary systems, the head of state's discretion matters most when no party has a majority. The October 2026 Knesset election produced such a deadlock, and President Herzog gave Gadi Eisenkot the mandate to form a government [1][2]. A comparison with India's Article 75 shows that in both countries the discretion is real but limited. Israel limits it mainly by statute; India limits it by convention and the courts.

Comparing the two roles

Aspect	India	Israel
Legal basis	Art. 75(1): "PM shall be appointed by the President." The text sets no criteria [3]	Basic Law: The Government sets the steps and deadlines [4]
Process	Informal: claims, letters of support, a floor test	Mandatory consultations with Knesset factions, then the mandate within 7 days [4]
Timeline	No fixed limit	28 days, plus up to 14 more; then a second nominee; then the Knesset can act itself [4]
Fallback	Dissolution on the PM's advice	A repeat election, which Herzog urged lawmakers to avoid [1]

How far convention constrains the discretion

India: mostly convention and the courts

• The Sarkaria Commission set an order of preference: a pre-poll alliance first, then the largest single party with support, then a post-poll coalition [5].
• Precedents shaped practice. In 1996 the largest party was invited and fell within 13 days. In 1998 the President asked for written proof of support.
• In Rameshwar Prasad (2006), the Supreme Court ruled that a claim by a post-poll alliance cannot be refused just because horse-trading is suspected. That makes the discretion open to judicial review [6].
• The floor test (S.R. Bommai) moves the final decision from the head of state to the House.

Israel: statute plus convention

• The law requires the President to consult the factions, but it does not say whom to pick. By convention, the President chooses the MK the factions' recommendations show is most likely to form a government.
• Herzog chose Eisenkot, who was backed by 67 MKs, even though Likud was the largest faction [2]. Here the convention of majority recommendations outweighed party size.
• The fixed timelines and the Knesset's own fallback route limit any delay or partisan choice [4].

The two systems arrive at the same principle by different routes: the head of state facilitates, and the House decides. In India, convention and judicial review fill the gaps in Article 75. In Israel, the Basic Law does that work, and convention still guides the choice of nominee. Codifying the Sarkaria and Punchhi guidelines as binding conventions would further strengthen neutrality and democratic legitimacy in a hung Lok Sabha.