Tamil Nadu’s saga of controversial Governors begins with Sri Prakasa of the 1950s
The role and actions of governors have once again become the subject of political discourse in the country, especially in the context of their behavior in Opposition-ruled States other than the BJP. Recently, the High Level Committee on Union-State Relations constituted by the Government of Tamil Nadu and chaired by Justice (retired) Kurian Joseph suggested ways to ensure that Governors do not remain instruments of undue interference by the Union Government in areas of governance.
The panel’s recommendations came in the backdrop of the ruling DMK’s problematic relationship with Governor RN Ravi. However, the State is no stranger to controversial decisions by Governors since 1952. What the then Governor Sri Prakasa, a devout Congressman, did was more surprising than the election results and led to the suspension of the Legislative Assembly.
He nominated C. Rajagopalachari (CR or Rajaji), who had retired from active politics, to the Legislative Council under the constitutional provision that allows nomination of persons with special knowledge or practical experience in fields such as literature, science, arts, cooperative movement and social work. 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 post of Prime Minister. But when talk of CR becoming CM started doing the rounds again, his partner and leading Tamil journalist-writer ‘Kalki’ R. Krishnamurthy compared it in his weekly magazine to Ramana Maharishi becoming the mayor of Tiruvannamalai municipality, according to his biography of Rajmohan Gandhi. Rajaji: A Life.
As expected, CR’s candidacy alone had created a political storm as he was later appointed as the Chief Minister of the State covering parts of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala. Then and even now, no one would question CR’s literary expertise or literary scholarship and candidacy; but the issue that remains for discussion is whether a Council of Ministers in office during a transitional period after an unfavorable popular decision can recommend the Governor to fill vacancies in the legislative Assembly, and whether the latter can act in favor of such a recommendation.
Senior Marxist leader P. Ramamurti of the Communist Party of India (CPI) challenged the Governor’s decision in the Madras High Court and strongly opposed the move, calling it a “malicious practice” and a “fraud” of the powers of the office. However, the Court rejected his petition.
In fact, while retreating in Mashobra, Himachal Pradesh, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru conveyed his disapproval of the action of his friend, Governor Sri Prakasa, through a letter dated April 3, 1952, according to https://nehruarchive.in/documents/to-sri-prakasa-3-april-1952-z5epo. Nehru wrote to the Governor in response to his letter and telegram of 31 March regarding political developments in the state, specifically that you should nominate Rajaji to the Upper House. However, four days later, the Prime Minister expressed his willingness to help CR and also explained his approach towards the leadership issue in Tamil Nadu. “Events moved quickly in Madras and I felt quite helpless here. [sic] He said that any intervention on our part from here would be of no use and that this matter should be decided by you and others in Madras itself. Naturally, I was reluctant at this stage to pressure you to accept this burden. On the other hand, all our efforts to find a way out were also unsuccessful,” Nehru said in his letter to Rajaji.
The Congress, which had won an overwhelming majority in the first Assembly election after independence in 1946, could not obtain its own majority. The party emerged as the single largest party, winning only 152 seats in the 375-member Assembly. Tamil-speaking districts accounted for 96 in the Congress’s overall tally. What was important about the decision was that Chief Minister PS Kumaraswami Raja and most of his cabinet colleagues had tasted defeat. The 1952 elections heralded what the State and Congress experienced 15 years later; because the rice shortage problem played a major role in tipping the scales against the current regime.
In his memoirs, C. Subraniam, Minister of Finance and Food in the Ministry headed by Rajagopalachari Hand of Destiny (Volume 1) said that the Congress had to pay a “very high price” in the elections for following a rationing policy in rice supply. Review of reports Hindu A document published in January-March 1952 reveals that the popular decision was interpreted in some quarters as a rejection of Congress.
CPI, which came second in the first general election held in January-February 1952, won 62 seats; Kisan Mazdoor Praja Party (KMPP) 35, Tamil Nadu Labor Party (TNTP) 19, Krishikar Lok Party (KLP) 15, Socialist Party 13, Commonwealth 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 the face of such a fragmented decision, the Governor added fuel to the fire by inviting CR, the leader of the Congress legislative party, to form the government on March 31, 1952, even though it was quite clear that the party did not have a majority of its own. Former Congress leader T. Prakasam, who heads KMPP, had claimed to form the government on the grounds that he had the support of 166 elected MLAs, including Communists. Prakasam, who received the support of 37 independent members as well as most or all members of the TNTP, KLP, Forward Bloc and Commonweal Party, had formed a coalition called the United Democratic Front. However, the Governor ignored the rebel Congress leader’s claim and proceeded to appoint CR as the Chief Minister. A surprise inclusion in Rajaji’s Cabinet was Commonwealth Party leader MA Manickavelu Naicker. When the Assembly was established in early May, the number of Congress had increased to 165.
The fashionable practice then was that no incumbent government should take any policy decisions as soon as the model code of conduct for Assembly elections comes into force. If he is going to take such a decision due to urgency, he needs to get the approval of the Election Commission. In this way, Tamil Nadu can deserve credit for being responsible for formulating the app.
It was published – 04 March 2026 05:32 IST
