The role and actions of the governors have once again become a subject of political discourse in the country, especially in relation to their behavior in non-BJP opposition-ruled states. Recently, the High Level Committee on Union-State Relations, set up by the Tamil Nadu government and chaired by Justice (retired) Kurian Joseph, recommended ways to ensure that governors do not remain an instrument of Union government overreach in areas of governance.
The panel’s recommendations come against the backdrop of the ruling DMK’s troubled relationship with Governor RN Ravi. However, the state is no stranger to controversial decisions by governors since 1952. What then governor Sri Prakasa, a stalwart Congressman, did was more amazing than the election results, leading to a deadlocked legislative assembly.
He nominated C. Rajagopalachari (CR or Rajaji), who retired from active politics, to the Legislative Council under a constitutional provision that allows for the nomination of individuals with special knowledge or practical experience in fields such as literature, science, art, cooperative movements and social services. Three others — Mohamed Usman, V. Bashyam Iyengar and Omandur P. Ramaswami Reddiar — were also nominated.
In fact, it took weeks and considerable effort on the part of the Congress to convince Rajaji—the only Indian to serve as Governor-General of India—to accept the post of chief minister. However, when there was talk of CR becoming CM again, his associate and prominent Tamil journalist and writer “Kalki” R. Krishnamurthy compared it in his weekly to Ramana Maharishi becoming the chairman of Tiruvannamalai village, according to Rajmohan Gandhi’s biography Rajaji: A Life.
Expectedly, the CR’s nomination created a political storm as he was subsequently appointed as the Chief Minister of the state, which then included parts of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala. No one then and now would have questioned the literary expertise of the Czech Republic or its literary scholarship and its nomination as such, but the question that is still being discussed is whether the Council of Ministers, who are in office during the transition period after an unfavorable popular verdict, can recommend to the governor the filling of vacant seats in the legislative chamber, and whether the latter can act in favor of such a recommendation.
Veteran Marxist leader P. Ramamurti of the Communist Party of India (CPI) challenged the Governor’s decision in the Madras High Court and argued furiously against the move, calling it a “malafide exercise” and a “fraud” on the powers of the office. However, the court rejected his proposal.
In fact, during his retreat at Mashobra, Himachal Pradesh, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, through a letter dated 3 April 1952, conveyed his disapproval of the action of his friend-Governor Sri Prakasa, according to “I confess I am not very happy about this development”, more specifically you wrote that you had to appoint the Upper House in the Rajah House of his letter. dated March 31 and a telegram about political developments in the state. Four days later, however, the prime minister expressed his willingness to help the Czech Republic and also explained his approach to the issue of leadership in Tamil Nadu. “Events in Madras were progressing rapidly and I felt quite helpless here. I realized (sic) that any interference on our part from here would not help at all and the matter must be decided in Madras itself by you and others. I was naturally reluctant to pressurize you to accept this burden at this stage. On the other hand, all our efforts to find some way out also failed,” Rajaji said in the letter to Nehru.
In the first assembly elections after independence, the Congress, which had secured an overwhelming majority in 1946, could not win a majority of its own. In the 375-member House, the party could only win 152 seats, becoming the single largest party. Tamil speaking areas accounted for 96 of the Congress total. What was important about the verdict was that Chief Minister PS Kumaraswami Raja and most of his cabinet colleagues tasted defeat. The 1952 elections were a foreshadowing of what the state and Congress would experience 15 years later, as the rice shortage problem played a large role in tipping the scales against the existing regime.
C. Subramaniam, who became finance and food minister in the Rajagopalachari-led ministry, in his memoirs Hand of Destiny (Volume 1), said that the Congress had to pay a “very heavy price” in the elections for pursuing a rationing policy in rice supply. A perusal of The Hindu reports published during January-March 1952 shows that the popular verdict was interpreted in certain quarters as a repudiation of the Congress.
In the first general elections held during January-February 1952, the CPI, which finished second, secured 62 seats; Kisan Mazdoor Praja Party (KMPP) 35, Tamil Nadu Toilers’ Party (TNTP) 19, Krishikar Lok Party (KLP) 15, Socialist Party 13, Commonweal Party 6; Madras State Muslim League 5, Forward Bloc (Marxists) Party 3, Scheduled Castes Federation (SCF) 2 and Justice Party 1, besides 62 independents.
In view of such a fragmented verdict, the governor added fuel to the fire by inviting the Czech Republic, which on March 31, 1952 became the chairman of the Congress Legislature Party, to form a government, even though it was quite clear that the party did not have a majority. T. Prakasam, a former Congress leader who led the KMPP, staked his claim to form the government on the basis that he had the support of 166 elected MLAs, including Communists. Claiming the support of most or all members belonging to TNTP, KLP, Forward Bloc and Commonweal Party, apart from 37 independents, Prakasam formed a coalition called the United Democratic Front. However, the governor did not take note of the claims of the rebel Congress leader and proceeded to appoint the Czech Republic as the chief minister. A surprise inclusion in Rajaji’s cabinet was Commonwealth Party leader MA Manikkavelu Naicker. By the time the assembly was constituted in early May, the membership of the Congress had grown to 165.
The practice that has come into vogue subsequently is that no sitting government takes any policy decision once the model code of conduct for assembly elections comes into force. If he has to take such a decision for urgent reasons, he must ask for the consent of the electoral commission. In this way, Tamil Nadu can claim credit for having been responsible for formulating the practice.
Published – March 4, 2026 05:32 IST
