Context

• The 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly election created a major constitutional controversy concerning the powers of the Governor, the meaning of democratic mandate, and the functioning of parliamentary democracy in India.
• The Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), led by C. Joseph Vijay, emerged as the single largest party with 108 seats in the 234-member Assembly, defeating both the DMK and AIADMK, which had dominated the State for nearly six decades.
• However, Governor of Tamil Nadu refused to immediately invite Vijay to form the government and instead demanded signed letters from 118 MLAs before administering the oath.
• This decision raised serious questions regarding constitutional morality, federalism, and the neutrality of constitutional authorities.

The Constitutional Role of the Governor

• Limited Scope of Gubernatorial Powers
  • In a parliamentary system, the Governor’s responsibility after elections is limited to identifying the individual most likely to command the confidence of the Assembly.
  • The Governor is expected to act as a neutral constitutional authority rather than as a political decision-maker.
  • The Sarkaria Commission, Venkatachaliah Commission, and Punchhi Commission clearly established that the leader of the largest party or alliance capable of forming a stable government should ordinarily be invited first.
  • By demanding prior proof of majority support, the Governor departed from accepted constitutional practice.
  • Such actions expanded gubernatorial discretion beyond its legitimate constitutional limits.
• Violation of Democratic Conventions
  • The refusal to swear in Vijay despite his party being the largest in the Assembly weakened the principle of democratic accountability.
  • The people had delivered a clear electoral verdict, yet procedural obstacles delayed the formation of the government.
  • This created the impression that constitutional authority was being exercised selectively rather than impartially.

Historical Precedents and Selective Constitutionalism

• The controversy becomes more significant when compared with earlier precedents in Goa, Manipur, and Karnataka.
• In these States, Governors invited the BJP to form governments despite the party not being the largest in the Assembly.
• In Karnataka in 2018, the BJP with 104 seats was invited to form the government even though the Congress-Janata Dal(S) alliance had already secured majority support.
• These examples reveal inconsistent use of constitutional conventions.
• Broad discretion was exercised when it benefited one political party, while stricter standards were applied in Tamil Nadu.
• Such inconsistency encourages allegations of partisanship and damages public trust in constitutional institutions.

Constitutional Validity of Minority Governments

• Indian parliamentary history demonstrates that minority governments are constitutionally legitimate.
• Governments led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee, P.V. Narasimha Rao, H.D. Deve Gowda, I.K. Gujral, and Manmohan Singh all functioned with outside support or without an absolute majority at the time of formation.
• The Constitution does not require a Chief Minister-designate to submit signed letters proving majority support before taking office.
• The true test of legitimacy is the floor test in the legislature. A government remains in power until it loses a motion of no confidence.
• Therefore, demanding signatures before swearing in a government contradicts long-standing parliamentary tradition.

The Dangers of an Early Confidence Vote: Encouragement of Horse-Trading

• Another controversial decision was the Governor’s direction that Vijay prove his majority within seventy-two hours.
• Such a narrow deadline creates opportunities for horse-trading, defections, and political instability.
• The anti-defection law was enacted to prevent exactly this type of political manipulation.
• During the Karnataka crisis of 2018, the Supreme Court of India recognised that delays before confidence votes could encourage engineered defections.
• However, imposing extremely short deadlines can be equally harmful because they destabilize newly formed governments and encourage political bargaining.
• Parliamentary democracy requires stability, debate, and legislative accountability rather than rushed political manoeuvring.

The Way Forward: Need for Judicial Clarification

• The controversy highlights the need for clearer constitutional guidelines regarding government formation.
• Important judgments such as S.R. Bommai and Rameshwar Prasad addressed the misuse of constitutional powers, but ambiguities still remain regarding the Governor’s discretion.
• The Supreme Court should firmly establish three principles:
  • The Governor’s role is limited to identifying the leader most likely to command confidence.
  • A government’s majority should be tested only on the floor of the House.
  • Newly formed governments should not be destabilized through arbitrary deadlines or political pressure.
• Such clarification would strengthen constitutional governance, protect federalism, and reduce political misuse of constitutional offices.

Conclusion

• The Tamil Nadu controversy demonstrates how constitutional conventions can be manipulated for political purposes.
• Respect for constitutional morality, democratic mandate, and parliamentary democracy is essential for preserving India’s federal structure.
• Governors are expected to function as impartial guardians of the Constitution rather than instruments of political strategy.
• Constitutional authorities must respect the will of the people above all else, because in a democracy the final authority rests not with the Centre, but with the voter.

Why in the News?

• It has been over a year since India placed the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance following the Pahalgam terror attack, with the Ministry of External Affairs reiterating that the Treaty will remain suspended until Pakistan credibly abjures cross-border terrorism.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• About IWT (Features, Significance, etc.)
• India’s Decision to Pause the Treaty (Reasons, Pakistan’s Response, India’s Strategy, Challenges & Way Forward)

About the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT)

• The IWT is a water-sharing agreement signed between India and Pakistan on September 19, 1960, with the World Bank acting as a facilitator.
• The Treaty was signed by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistani President Mohammed Ayub Khan, after nearly nine years of negotiations brokered by the World Bank.
• The Treaty governs the sharing of the waters of six major transboundary rivers of the Indus river system flowing through both countries:

• Eastern Rivers: Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej, allocated to India for unrestricted use.
• Western Rivers: Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab, allocated to Pakistan, with India allowed limited, non-consumptive use for irrigation, hydropower, navigation, and domestic purposes.

• The Treaty established the Permanent Indus Commission, consisting of one commissioner from each country, to facilitate cooperation and information exchange.
• It also provided a three-tier dispute resolution mechanism:

• Permanent Indus Commission for routine matters.
• Neutral Expert appointed by the World Bank for technical differences.
• Court of Arbitration for legal disputes.

Significance of the Treaty

• The Indus River system is crucial for both countries:

• For India: It supports agriculture, hydropower generation, and meets the development needs of Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Haryana, and Rajasthan.
• For Pakistan: It is the lifeline of agriculture, fulfilling over 70% of its irrigation requirements.

• The Treaty has historically ensured predictability in water flows, reduced the scope for water-related conflicts, and provided a framework for cooperation despite political tensions.

India's Decision to Hold the Treaty in Abeyance

• Following the Pahalgam terror attack in April 2025 and the subsequent Operation Sindoor, India decided to keep the Indus Waters Treaty "in abeyance".
• This means India no longer considers itself bound by the Treaty's provisions for the time being.
• India's decision has disrupted normal flows reaching Pakistan, affected data-sharing mechanisms, and halted regular meetings of the Indus Waters Commissioners, creating uncertainty for Pakistan's water planning, flood preparedness, and drought management.

Pakistan's Response: Internationalising the Issue

• Being the downstream state, Pakistan has been severely affected by India's decision. With limited unilateral options, Pakistan has pursued a strategy of internationalising the dispute:
• Approaches to International Bodies

• United Nations Security Council (UNSC): As a non-permanent member since January 2025, Pakistan has repeatedly raised the issue at the UNSC, even during unrelated discussions on energy and critical minerals.
• International Court of Justice (ICJ): Pakistan has sought ICJ intervention, although such a referral remains unlikely.
• World Bank: As a Treaty facilitator, Pakistan has approached the World Bank seeking mediation.
• UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC): Pakistan has framed the issue as a human rights concern, leading UN Special Rapporteurs to send communications to India seeking clarification, which India has ignored.

• Legal Argument
  • Pakistan's core argument is that the Treaty contains no provision allowing either country to keep it in abeyance, only a dispute resolution mechanism. It claims India’s decision violates international law.

Court of Arbitration

• The Court of Arbitration, constituted under the IWT mechanism, ruled last year that India’s decision did not deprive the court of competence to proceed with pending matters.
• India had objected to the very formation of this Court, arguing that a parallel mechanism through a World Bank-appointed neutral expert was already operational.
• India has refused to participate in its proceedings and has rejected its rulings.

India's Strategic Approach

• While countering Pakistan's arguments at international forums, India has focused on two key actions:
• Building Infrastructure
  • India is accelerating the completion of long-delayed projects on the Indus river system. The Treaty allows India:

• Unrestricted use of the three eastern rivers (Ravi, Sutlej, Beas).
• Limited, non-consumptive use of the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) for hydropower and other purposes.
• Historically, Pakistan has used the Treaty's provisions to raise repeated objections to Indian projects, delaying them and increasing costs. India is now working to fully utilise its entitled water share.

• Strengthening Techno-Legal Case
  • India has constituted a committee of experts to strengthen its techno-legal position with new data and evidence.
  • India argues that the situation has changed significantly over the past 65 years, and the Treaty needs to be renegotiated or replaced due to:

• Population growth on the Indian side, increasing water demand.
• Climate change introducing uncertainties in water availability and river flows.
• Development and energy needs of Jammu and Kashmir.
• New technologies making some Treaty constraints redundant.

Challenges and Way Forward

• Diplomatic Escalation: The issue could lead to major legal or diplomatic confrontation.
• Risk of Conflict: Pakistan has even threatened armed conflict over the matter.
• Regional Stability: Water scarcity in Pakistan could destabilise the region.
• Precedent Setting: India's decision sets a precedent for linking transboundary water cooperation to national security concerns like terrorism.
• Pakistan's larger objective is to get the UNSC to pass a resolution against India or refer the issue to the ICJ, outcomes considered unlikely.
  • Its strategy appears focused on creating documentary references in UN records to build a long-term legal case.
• For India, the priority remains balancing its legitimate security concerns with its international obligations while modernising the Treaty framework to reflect contemporary realities.

Context:

• India’s transition towards clean mobility has entered a decisive phase with two major policy developments.
• The draft Delhi EV Policy 2.0 released for public consultation, and the revised draft of CAFE-3 (Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency) norms circulated by the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE).
• Together, these measures could determine whether India moves from gradual EV adoption to a large-scale transformation in transport decarbonisation.

Delhi EV Policy 2.0 - A Shift from Incentives to Regulation:

• Delhi as a pioneer in urban mobility reform:
  • Delhi has historically acted as a laboratory for urban transport reforms with initiatives like early adoption of metro rail, modernisation of public bus systems, and the launch of the landmark Delhi EV Policy 2020.
  • The new draft policy builds on this legacy and marks a major policy shift.
• Key features of Delhi EV Policy 2.0:
  • Phase-out of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles:
    • The most significant proposal is the phased ban on new registrations of ICE vehicles in key segments -
      • ICE three-wheelers: No new registrations from January 2027
      • ICE two-wheelers: No new registrations from April 2027
    • Since two- and three-wheelers constitute nearly 75% of Delhi’s vehicle sales, this is a transformational intervention.
  • Clear regulatory direction:
    • Unlike earlier approaches centred mainly on subsidies, the policy provides long-term regulatory certainty, predictable transition timelines, and clear signals to manufacturers and investors.
    • This encourages manufacturing investments, supply-chain development, and innovation in EV technology.
• Significance of the policy - Moving beyond subsidy-driven adoption:
  • India’s EV growth has largely depended on incentives such as purchase subsidies, tax benefits, and state incentives. However, subsidies alone cannot achieve scale.
  • Global experience shows that rapid EV adoption occurs when incentives are combined with mandatory targets, ICE phase-out timelines, and strong regulatory signals.
  • Delhi’s policy represents India’s shift toward this model.

Revised CAFE-3 Norms:

• What are CAFE norms?
  • Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) norms regulate average fuel efficiency and emissions standards for automobile manufacturers.
  • They are India’s principal regulatory tool for improving fuel economy and reducing transport emissions in the passenger vehicle segment.
• Why CAFE-3 matters?
  • Passenger vehicles remain a weak link in India’s EV transition, for example, EV penetration in passenger cars is only around 4%.
  • Hence, stricter efficiency standards are essential for accelerating electrification.
• Positive changes in the revised draft:
  • Reduced bias towards small petrol vehicles: Earlier provisions that disproportionately favoured small petrol vehicles have been tightened.
  • Flexible compliance mechanisms:
    • The draft introduces credit pooling, and purchase of compliance credits.
    • These mechanisms ease industry transition, maintain pressure for higher efficiency standards, and promote regulatory accountability.

Broader Strategic Importance:

• Energy security dimension: India imports nearly 90% of its crude oil requirements, making transport electrification strategically important.
• EV transition can help:
  • Reduce oil import dependence
  • Improve energy security
  • Lower current account pressure
  • Reduce urban pollution
  • Achieve climate commitments

Key Concerns Regarding Revised CAFE-3 Norms:

• Super-credit multipliers for hybrid technologies:
  • The draft continues to provide generous compliance credits for strong hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and flex-fuel vehicles.
  • Why this is problematic: These are not truly zero-emission technologies. Over-incentivising hybrids may delay full electrification, lock India into intermediate technologies, and slow long-term decarbonisation goals.
• Policy paralysis:
  • CAFE-3 has remained under discussion for more than three years, despite multiple consultations and draft revisions.
  • Impacts of delay - manufacturers postpone investments, supply chains evolve slowly, market uncertainty persists, etc.
  • Hence, finalising CAFE-3 is now a matter of urgency rather than refinement.

Freight Transport - The Missing Piece in India’s Decarbonisation Strategy:

• Emission imbalance in freight sector:
  • Trucks constitute only 3% of India’s vehicle fleet, yet contribute around 44% of transport emissions.
  • This makes freight transport one of the most critical sectors for decarbonisation.
• Weaknesses in current framework:
  • India’s heavy-duty vehicle regulations currently rely on model-specific fuel efficiency standards.
  • However, they lack fleet-average efficiency mechanisms, strong incentives for zero-emission trucks, and systemic regulatory pressure.
  • As a result, investment in electric trucks remains weak, and hydrogen-based freight mobility progresses slowly.

Suggested Reforms for Freight Sector - CAFE Like Norms for Commercial Vehicles:

• Proposed features:
  • Fleet-average fuel efficiency standards
  • Differentiation based on payload categories
  • Incentives for zero-emission trucks
  • Strong regulatory push for electrification
• Without such reforms, schemes like the e-Truck initiative of the Ministry of Heavy Industries may struggle to scale.

Way Forward:

• India should “technologically pole vault”: Directly into zero-emission mobility, similar to its leap in digital public infrastructure, and mobile telephony adoption.
• Develop freight decarbonisation framework: Introduce fleet-average standards for trucks. Incentivise electric and hydrogen freight vehicles.
• Prioritise full electrification: Reduce excessive incentives for hybrids. Focus on zero-emission mobility.
• Improve institutional capacity of BEE: The Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) must act more decisively as a regulator rather than merely a consultative body.
• Integrate EV transition with renewable energy: India already possesses expanding renewable energy capacity, large domestic market and manufacturing potential. These strengths should be leveraged for clean mobility leadership.

Conclusion:

• India stands at a crucial inflection point in its clean mobility transition. Delhi EV Policy 2.0 and the proposed CAFE-3 norms together provide an opportunity to shift from incremental progress to systemic transformation.
• While the policy direction is encouraging, delays, regulatory ambiguity, and overreliance on transitional technologies could weaken momentum.
• A decisive push towards full electrification is essential not only for climate goals but also for energy security, industrial competitiveness, and sustainable urban development.
• India now needs bold execution to match its clean mobility ambitions.