The role and actions of Governors have once again become a subject of political discourse in the country, especially in the context of their conduct in non-BJP, Opposition-ruled States. Recently, a High-Level Committee on Union-State Relations, constituted by the Tamil Nadu Government and chaired by Justice (retired) Kurian Joseph, recommended ways to ensure Governors do not remain tools of the Union Government’s overreach in areas of governance.
The panel’s recommendations come against the backdrop of the ruling DMK’s troubled relationship with Governor R. N. Ravi. However, the State is no stranger to controversial decisions of Governors since 1952. What the then Governor, Sri Prakasa, a devout Congressman, did then was more stunning than the election results, leading to a hung Legislative Assembly.
He nominated C. Rajagopalachari (C.R. or Rajaji), who had retired from active politics, to the Legislative Council under the constitutional provision allowing the nomination of individuals with special knowledge or practical experience in fields such as literature, science, art, the cooperative movement and social service. 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 persuade Rajaji—the only Indian to have served as Governor-General of India—to accept the Chief Minister’s post. But, when the talk of C. R. becoming the CM again began doing rounds, his associate and prominent Tamil journalist-writer ‘Kalki’ R. Krishnamurthy likened it in his weekly to Ramana Maharishi becoming chairman of the Tiruvannamalai municipality, according to Rajmohan Gandhi’s biography Rajaji: A Life.
Expectedly, the nomination of C.R. alone had raised a political storm because he had subsequently been appointed Chief Minister of the State, which had then encompassed parts of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala. No one would, even then and now, question C.R.’s literary expertise or his scholarship of literature and his nomination per se but the issue that continues to be debated is whether a Council of Ministers, who are in office during the period of transition after an adverse popular verdict, can recommend to the Governor for filling vacancies in the legislative House, and whether the latter can act in favour 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 fiercely against the move, calling it a “malafide exercise” and a “fraud” on the powers of the office. However, the Court dismissed his petition.
In fact, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, during his retreat in Mashobra, Himachal Pradesh, conveyed, through a letter of April 3, 1952 his disapproval of his friend-Governor Sri Prakasa’s action, according to https://nehruarchive.in/documents/to-sri-prakasa-3-april-1952-z5epo “I confess I am not too happy at these developments, more specially your having to nominate Rajaji to the Upper House,” Nehru wrote to the Governor, in response to his letter of March 31 and telegram on the political developments in the State. However, four days later, the Prime Minister expressed his willingness to help C. R. and also explained his approach towards the leadership issue in Tamil Nadu. “Events moved fast in Madras, and I felt rather 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. Naturally, I was reluctant to press you to accept this burden at this stage. On the other hand, all our efforts to find some way out also did not succeed,” Nehru stated in his letter to Rajaji.
In the first Assembly election post-Independence, the Congress, which had secured an overwhelming majority in 1946, could not obtain a majority of its own. In the House of 375 members, the party could bag only 152 seats, emerging as the single largest party. The Tamil-speaking areas accounted for 96 in the overall tally of the Congress. What was significant about the verdict was that Chief Minister P.S. Kumaraswami Raja and most of his Cabinet colleagues tasted defeat. The 1952 election was a forerunner to what the State and the Congress had experienced 15 years later, as the problem of rice shortage played a big role in tilting the scales against the incumbent regime.
C. Subramaniam, who became the Finance and Food Minister in the Ministry headed by Rajagopalachari, in his memoirs Hand of Destiny (Volume 1), said the Congress had to pay “a very high price” in the election for pursuing the policy of rationing in the supply of rice. A perusal of reports of The Hindu published during January-March 1952 reveals the popular verdict was interpreted, in certain quarters, as the rejection of the Congress.
In the first general election held during January-February in 1952, the CPI, which finished second, secured 62 seats; the Kisan Mazdoor Praja Party (KMPP) 35, the Tamil Nadu Toilers’ Party (TNTP) 19, the Krishikar Lok Party (KLP) 15, the Socialist Party 13, the Commonweal Party 6; the Madras State Muslim League 5, the Forward Bloc (Marxists) Party 3, the Scheduled Castes Federation (SCF) 2 and the Justice Party 1, besides 62 Independents.
Given such a fractured verdict, the Governor added fuel to the fire by inviting C.R., who became the leader of the Congress legislature party on March 31, 1952, to form the government, even though it was quite clear the party did not have a majority of its own. T. Prakasam, former Congress leader who headed the KMPP, had staked claim to form the government on the ground that he had the support of 166 MLAs-elect, who included the Communists. Claiming the support of most or all members belonging to the TNTP, KLP, Forward Bloc and the Commonweal Party, apart from 37 independents, Prakasam had formed a coalition called the United Democratic Front. However, the Governor did not take cognisance of the rebel Congress leader’s claim and proceeded to appoint C.R. the Chief Minister. A surprise inclusion in the Rajaji Cabinet was the Commonweal Party’s leader M. A. Manickavelu Naicker. By the time the Assembly was constituted in the early May, the strength of the Congress rose to 165.
The practice that came into vogue subsequently is that no incumbent government, as soon as the model code of conduct for the Assembly election comes into force, takes any policy decision. If it is to take any such decision on account of exigency, it has to seek the Election Commission’s nod. That way, Tamil Nadu can claim the credit for having been responsible for the formulation of the practice.
Published – March 04, 2026 05:32 am IST
