Discuss the role of the head of state in government formation after a hung verdict, comparing India and parliamentary democracies elsewhere.

In a parliamentary system the head of state normally acts on ministerial advice. A hung verdict removes that advice. It opens a rare area of personal discretion: whom to invite, in what order, and how a majority should be tested. That discretion is legitimate only if it is used neutrally.

Role of the head of state in India

• Constitutional basis: The President appoints the PM (Art. 75) and the Governor appoints the CM (Art. 164). The text sets no criteria for a hung House, so convention fills the gap.
• Order of preference: The Sarkaria Commission set out an order of invitation: pre-poll alliance, then the largest party with support, then a post-poll coalition, then a post-poll alliance with outside support [2]. The Punchhi Commission (2010) again reviewed the Governor's discretion [3].
• Practice: In 1996, President Shankar Dayal Sharma invited Vajpayee as leader of the largest party, and the government fell within 13 days. In 1998, President Narayanan first asked for letters of support.
• Judicial checks: In S.R. Bommai (1994), the Supreme Court held that a majority must be tested on the floor of the House, not in Raj Bhavan [4]. In Rameshwar Prasad (2006), it struck down the dissolution of the Bihar assembly on speculative claims of horse-trading [5].

Practice in other parliamentary democracies

• UK: Under the Cabinet Manual, the incumbent stays in office as a caretaker while parties negotiate. The parties are expected to make clear who can command the confidence of the Commons, so that the Sovereign is not drawn into politics [6].
• Israel: The October 2026 election left a hung Knesset (Netanyahu bloc 53, Opposition 48, Arab parties 19, out of 120). President Herzog will consult party leaders and then task one of them with forming a government. Talks could last weeks [1].

Comparative assessment

• Common ground: Every system tests confidence of the House, and every head of state's discretion is limited by convention.
• Differences: In the UK the monarch stays passive. Israel holds formal, public consultations. In India, Governors' choices in hung assemblies keep ending up in court [4][5].
• Risks: Delay can encourage defections, caretaker governments can drift, and invitations can be selective. The UK's rule of caretaker restraint addresses the drift [6].

In all these systems, the head of state helps a majority take shape but does not create it. India could draw on the best of each: write the Sarkaria–Punchhi order of preference into binding guidelines, require time-bound floor tests as Bommai demands, and adopt Israel-style transparent consultations. This would strengthen responsible government, the constitutional principle that the executive answers to the legislature.