How the Tamil Nadu legislature, in the late 1940s, viewed the making of the Constitution

About 10 years ago, in the process leading to the preparation of the Constitutional amendment and the laws regarding the Goods and Services Tax (GST) 2017, many states, especially Tamil Nadu, which was ruled by Jayalalithaa until December 2016, had made various demands to defend their rights. Some of the demands were accepted and included in the final version of the Constitutional and legal framework. However, this attitude of states wanting to have a say in matters of constitutional and legal importance is nothing new.

In the Constituent Assembly debates (1946-49), K. Santhanam and N. G. Ranga, both from the southern states representing the present Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, strongly opposed any attempt to make the Central government more powerful under the guise of expanding the Concurrent List. The Center-State Relations Commission (2010), in volume I of its report, quoted the minutes of the Assembly in which Ambedkar, Chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee, stated that “modern conditions” had forced the federal government of the United States of America to “outdo itself” by “eclipsing and eclipsing the State governments”. Ambedkar similarly visualized, “The same conditions are certain to prevail with the Government of India, and nothing that can be done can help to prevent it from becoming powerful,” adding: “We must resist the temptation to do so. [the Centre] stronger.”

Santhanam, who felt that the trend of expanding the Concurrent List would blur the distinction between the Union government and the States, said in this context, “We will have to see that the concurrent list is either limited to the minimum or define the scope of Central and State jurisdiction in respect of the matters mentioned in this List.” Ranga was more direct and critical: “One of the most important consequences of the strengthening of the Central Government will be to transfer power not to the Central Government but to the Central Secretariat. From the chaprassi or duffadar in the Central Secretariat to the Secretary there, each will find himself a much more important person than the Chief Minister of a state, and the Chief Ministers of the States will have to move from office to office at the Center to take up any office. It has not attracted any attention from the Centre,” Ranga was quoted as saying to the Constituent Assembly in the Commission report.

In the state capital, in June 1947, J. Sivashanmugam Pillai, the Speaker of the Madras (as Tamil Nadu was then called) Legislative Assembly and an ardent follower of Mahatma Gandhi and the first Scheduled Caste to hold the post of Speaker in the state, wrote to HVR Iyengar, Secretary of the Constituent Assembly, seeking a copy of the draft Constitution. Just three months earlier, in the Legislative Assembly elections, Pillai’s party, the Congress, had returned to power, winning 164 of the 215 seats that went to the polls.

“HE [Pillai] He believed that this was a routine procedure since Rule 63(1) [the entire Rule of which was removed in July 1947 following a motion moved by K.M. Munshi] states and [Princely] According to Assembling India’s Constitution: A New Democratic History, Rohit De and Ornit Shani, Penguin Random House, 2025, States would have the opportunity to formulate their views on the draft before the document is finalized. Pillai’s request was rejected by the Assembly secretariat on the grounds that the rule no longer existed.

Only a few months later, it was made public that there was correspondence between Pillai and the Constituent Assembly secretariat on this issue. SB Adityan, founder of Daily Thanthi, a leading Tamil daily, declared this on September 24, 1947, while participating in a debate in the Legislative Council.

He stated that “the draft Constitution Bill will not be forwarded for consideration by the State Assembly as soon as possible or at any time”, The Hindu reported on September 25, 1947.

Adityan’s statement came as Congress critic and Madras University Vice-Chancellor A. Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar sought passage of a resolution by the Upper House and appealed to the government to take steps to consider the draft “as soon as possible”. In fact, the former argued that considering the communication with Pillai, the motion proposed by Mudaliar should not be considered. The veteran journalist did not allow Mudaliar to be pressed on his decision because he maintained that any motion passed by the Assembly would be a “direct challenge” to the powers of the Constituent Assembly. He also said that such a resolution, if passed, would remain merely a “dead letter” and that it was unwise to pass it. Further, Adityan observed that the Assembly consists of elected representatives of the state legislature and if the proposed resolution is passed, it will give a bad impression to outsiders that the Assembly is trying to “stifle debate” that the state legislature wants.

However, Mudaliar countered his claim, saying that the Assembly was a sovereign body as much as the Constituent Assembly and if the resolution was not allowed to be discussed, it would amount to a violation of the privileges of the Assembly. On this issue, he received support from other members, including B. Narayanaswami Naidu, KTM Ahmed Ibrahim and R. Suryanarayana Rao, who emphasized that the Legislative Council was not prevented from discussing such a motion.

P. Subbaroyan, who was the Minister of Internal Affairs in the then Congress regime headed by Tanguturi Prakasam, spoke very briefly. Referring to the deletion of the original rule of the Constituent Assembly, which required the draft to be forwarded to the state legislatures and exchange of correspondence regarding Pillai, the Home Minister pointed out that the members of the Assembly were elected by the state legislature and the Assembly was also a “sovereign body”.

Mudaliar’s resolution was debated again in the House three months later – on 17 December the same year – and member VK John strongly opposed the motion, saying it would be “dangerous” to delay the Constitution-making process. This time, Subbaroyan explained at length why the decision should not be continued and why the Central government needed greater powers. He also cited the example of America, where he said the federal government, during the implementation of the Constitution, began to assume more powers for itself that were not contemplated by the framers of the U.S. Constitution. The trend in all the federations was for the Center to gain more and more power because “modern governments must be led by a central authority”. “Since it has to deal with other countries, naturally the Center must be armed with a power that will ensure respect in all other countries,” the Home Minister explained, adding that he did not argue with Mudaliar for a moment when he said that the States should have the power to enable the State’s progress. Eventually the resolution was put to a vote and declared lost.

The deliberations of the Legislative Council some 78 years ago demonstrated the high level of skill of the State’s legislators.

It was published – 07 January 2026 06:30 IST