*Examine the order of preference recommended by the Sarkaria Commission and Punchhi Commission for appointment of a Chief Minister in a hung assembly. How far have Governors adhered to these guidelines in practice?*

Q. Examine the order of preference recommended by the Sarkaria Commission and Punchhi Commission for appointment of a Chief Minister in a hung assembly. How far have Governors adhered to these guidelines in practice? (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Article 164(1) vests the appointment of the Chief Minister in the Governor but is silent on the criteria to be applied when no party wins a majority. The Sarkaria Commission (1987) and the Punchhi Commission (2010) filled this constitutional gap with an order of preference — a convention that has been followed selectively rather than consistently.

The recommended order of preference - Pre-poll alliance commanding a majority — its leader is invited first [1][2]. - Single largest party staking a claim with outside support — placed above post-poll arrangements [1]. - Post-poll coalition in which all partners join the government [2]. - Post-poll alliance where some partners are in the cabinet and others support from outside [2]. - Safeguards: an early floor test as the sole proof of majority, a Governor who is an outsider not recently active in politics, and a secure tenure insulated from Union pleasure [2][4].

Adherence in practice — the positive record - Tamil Nadu (2026): TVK, the single largest party with 108 of 234 seats, produced letters of support from 120 MLAs; Governor Arlekar invited C. Joseph Vijay and directed a confidence vote within days — the preference order plus floor-test discipline applied together [3]. - In clear-majority verdicts the appointment remains mechanical and uncontested.

Where Governors have deviated - Oath administered before numbers were demonstrated (Karnataka, 2018), compelling the Supreme Court to compress the floor test. - In Subhash Desai (2023) the Court held the Maharashtra Governor's floor-test call lacked objective material, restating that discretion cannot destabilise an elected government. - Because the guidelines are advisory, not statutory, PRS notes that most such recommendations remain unimplemented, the floor-test rule surviving only because the judiciary mandated it [4].

Adherence has therefore been partial and largely judicially enforced rather than voluntary. Codifying the order of preference in Rules of Business, prescribing a time-bound floor test, and adopting Punchhi's fixed tenure and impartial removal process would convert a contested discretion into a predictable constitutional duty, strengthening cooperative federalism.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State Relations, Inter-State Council Secretariat (report, 1987) — order of preference for inviting a Chief Minister; primacy of pre-poll alliance and single largest party 2. Commission on Centre-State Relations (Punchhi Commission), report submitted 30 March 2010 — reaffirmed preference sequence; safeguards on Governor's selection and tenure 3. C. Joseph Vijay-led TVK claims support of 120 MLAs to form govt in Tamil Nadu, Akashvani News (May 2026) — 108 seats, 118 majority mark, 120 MLAs' support, Governor's invitation and confidence vote 4. Governor versus state: Why tensions are rising again, PRS Legislative Research — commission recommendations largely unimplemented; floor test mandated by the Supreme Court