The Politics of Resignation

May 7, 2026
9:02 am

Can an incumbent Chief Minister refuse to resign after an electoral defeat?

“I WON’T RESIGN” said Mamata Banerjee after her party lost the recent West Bengal elections.

After a roller-coaster, turbulentelection season filled with unending political drama (where five legislative assemblies of the States of Assam, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, and the Union Territory of Puducherry rendered their political fate to the electorate), when the results were announced on 4^th of May, tension among many political classes arose as many struggled to accept the fact that this time, the electorate went for a different regime.

In the upcoming paragraph, you will know about the politics of resignation. One such case came from the State of West Bengal, where the incumbent government led by the current sitting Chief Minister, Smt. Mamata Banerjee from the All India Trinamool Congress, ruling for the last 15 years, suffered a devastating political setback by losing to the opposition led by the Bharatiya Janata Party by a margin of 127 seats[1](80-207).

Immediately after the election results came out, responding to the reporters, CM Mamata Banerjee in a Press Conference on 5^th of May, stated, “If I would have lost, I would have given my resignation. But if anyone thinks I will resign under pressure, that is not going to happen. We did not lose the election; it is their forceful attempt.[2]”

From a politically neutral standpoint, this remark and further subsequent actions in accordance with this(if any) can lead to serious legal and constitutional consequences. The larger question here is not whether she will resign or not; instead, it’s about how our current legal framework regulates the transfer of power in case of an electoral defeat for the incumbent ruling party, and whether there is a scope for improvement for the smooth transition of power. In the larger constitutional interest, this fundamental question should be addressed carefully to ensure that our republic never encounters what the Capitol witnessed in 2021[3] and continues to function as a mature democracy.

The Legal Aspect:

Constitutional Tenure of Governments: The Five-Year Rule

In the Indian Constitutional framework, both at the Union Level as well as at the State level, the time period of a government is up to 5 years (unless dissolved/losses majority earlier)underArticle 82 and Article 172, respectively.[4]

Post-Election Political Scenarios and Resignation Convention
After every five years, once elections are conducted and further results are declared, there are usually two scenarios. Either the incumbent ruling party saves its position in the State Legislative Assembly or loses it to some other party or alliance of parties. In any case, the general convention is that, soon after the final results are declared by the Election Commission of India, the incumbent Chief Minister tenders his or her resignation to the Governor of that State.

Constitutional Position of the Governor and Formation of Government
Here it is pertinent to note that, under the Constitution, the head of any government of the state is not its Chief Minister; instead, it’s the Governor under Article 154 [5] of the Indian Constitution. Further, the governor invites the party with the largest share of the seats for the new legislative assembly to form the government. Here, until the new government forms and the incoming Chief Ministers take the Oath, the incumbent Chief Minister functions as the “Caretaker CM”, fulfilling only the customary daily operations.

Absence of Explicit Constitutional Procedure for Transfer of Power
In this whole process, nothing in the constitutional text explicitly mentions the procedure for the transfer of power. The convention was morally followed, respecting the people’s mandate and showcasing signs of mature politics. This time too, the incumbent Chief Ministers of the State of Tamil Nadu(Shri M.K. Stalin) and the State of Kerala (Shri Pinarayi Vijayan), soon after the election results, when they came to know about their respective parties’/alliances’ electoral defeat, tendered their resignation to their respective State Governors.

This conventional scheme fallout arises when leaders like Smt. Mamata Banerjee give statements like this to orchestrate the political theatrics in front of their supportive electorate.

The general question that comes into the mind of a layman is, in such situations, how does the transfer of power take place? To answer this, we must first understand what options Smt. Mamata Banerjee and the Governor of West Bengal, Shri R.N. Ravi, have to explore within the ambit of the Constitution.

Expiry of Legislative Assembly and Caretaker Chief Minister
When the tenure of the current 17th Legislative Assembly of West Bengal expires on 7th May, Smt. Mamata Banerjee will automatically cease to hold the CM office along with her membership of the House. From that day till the swearing-in ceremony of the new Chief Minister along with other Cabinet Ministers, she, “on the pleasure” of the Governor, may continue as the caretaker Chief Minister.

Governor’s Options in Government Formation
On the commencement of the tenure of the new legislative assembly, the Governor may invites the leader of the single largest party (in this case, which is the Bharatiya Janata Party) on a prima facie basis, noting that no other party has the confidence of the required number of members of the legislative assembly. Alternatively, the Governor may summon the session of the House and then ask the incumbent CM or the leader of the largest party in the house to prove the confidence of the majority of the members through a floor test.

Appointment of a Non-Member as Chief Minister
Another interesting point here is that, even if Smt. Mamata Banerjee contends that, to be the Chief Minister, she has to win a seat in the House within the next six months because she lost her constituency too in the elections. Article 164(4) of the Constitution permits a person who is not a member of the state legislature to be appointed as a Minister or Chief Minister, provided they secure membership of the House within six months of such appointment[6].

Imposition of President’s Rule
In exceptional cases, where no party can prove its majority in the house through the floor test or by having confidence of the required MLAs, the Governor may, in his discretion, recommend the imposition of President Rule in that State under Article 356 of the Constitution[7], but in several landmark cases, the apex court held that such exercise of discretion must be reasonable and confined to exceptional cases.

Limitations on the Governor’s Powers
Also, the Governor, though the nominal head of the State, cannot dismiss or remove the sitting Chief Minister. Under Article 163(1), the Governor functions only through the aid and advice of the CM and her Council of Ministers.

Constitutional Loopholes and Political Influence
A major loophole which can be identified here is that, when the Governor of the State has to follow the aid and advice of the CM and her Council of Ministers, in the case where the latter losses the confidence of the house and the opposition demands a floor test though a session of the house, the governor may, through political influence be prevented to do so under the guise of the provision stated above. One such incident happened in 2020 in the State of Madhya Pradesh, where the Governor delayed the floor test.[8]

Through this, we can conclude a few things regarding the constitutional mechanism of the transfer of Power.

The Chief Minister holds the office at the pleasure of the Governor
The Governor still cannot dismiss the incumbent Chief Minister
In any situation, upon culmination of the tenure of the House, the Governor may ask the single largest party to prove the confidence of the required MLAs in the House
The incumbent Chief Minister, at last, can remain the caretaker CM until the upcoming CM takes the oath under Article 188 of the Constitution[9].

Conclusion

It’s a well-known fact among many circles of political discourse that Smt. Mamata Banerjee’s statement was more of a political stunt rather than a legal strategy to save her CM office. At best, she may approach the courts challenging the election conduct and the subsequent results within 45 days of their declaration under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951[10]. Instead of this, making such a statement publicly after being in office for 15 years and in a continued public space for more than three decades, shows nothing less than political commotion and haphazardness to accept the fact that the electorate wished for something else.

Notwithstanding the outcome of challenging the election conduct(on which she publicly expressed dissatisfaction and an uneven playing field to the ECI) and its results by the ECI, this position of Smt. Mamata Banerjee causes grave constitutional, legal, and moral concerns. Ultimately, “It’s better to let it go than to be thrown out”.

Author Details: Ojas Rai, First Student Of B.A. Ll.B. (Hons.) At National Law School Of India University, Bengaluru.

Views expressed herein are personal.

Link to similar articles: https://jpassociates.co.in/rahul-gandhis-fraud-voting/