Tamil Nadu’s New Panel to Challenge Alleged Central Overreach

A Retired Supreme Court Judge Heads the Committee on State Autonomy

April 16, 2025

Photo by Mahi Gowthaman, licensed under Creative Commons (modified)

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin has announced the formation of a high-level, three-member committee tasked with reviewing the status of state rights under the Indian Constitution and recommending ways to preserve them. The committee, formed in response to alleged overreach by the Centre, will be chaired by retired Supreme Court judge Kurian Joseph.

Stalin made the announcement during a session of the Tamil Nadu Assembly, where he accused the Union government of gradually eroding the constitutional powers granted to states, according to The Indian Express.

The purpose of the committee, according to Stalin, is twofold: to protect the rights and entitlements of states and to find ways to strengthen cooperative federalism between the Centre and the states – in which the Centre and the states work together to formulate and implement policies, sharing responsibilities, resources and decision-making.

The initiative comes at a time when tensions between Tamil Nadu and the central government have been mounting over a series of policy decisions and administrative actions that the state alleges are undermining its autonomy.

Recently, a Supreme Court verdict directly addressed a dispute between the Tamil Nadu government and Governor R.N. Ravi. The court found the Governor’s prolonged withholding of assent to 10 bills passed by the state legislature to be unconstitutional.

In the judgment, the Court clearly stated that no constitutional authority, including governors or the President, is immune from judicial scrutiny, as reported by The Hindustan Times. The decision stated that a governor must act within three months to either give assent or refer a bill to the President. If the state legislature passes the same bill again, the governor is obliged to grant assent immediately, or within one month at most.

The judgment noted that governors do not possess discretionary power under Article 200 of the Constitution to arbitrarily withhold assent. The court explicitly rejected any notion of an “absolute veto” or a “pocket veto.”

The judgment rebuked Gov. Ravi’s handling of the Tamil Nadu bills, noting that the prolonged delay had significantly impaired the state government’s ability to deliver on its electoral promises and mandate. It further clarified that withholding assent for reasons such as personal dissatisfaction, political convenience, or irrelevant considerations is unconstitutional.

The context of the committee on state autonomy includes several other flashpoints between the DMK-led Tamil Nadu government and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led central government, ranging from language policy and NEET to the use of central investigating agencies.

Justice Joseph, who will lead the committee, served on the Supreme Court from March 2013 until his retirement in November 2018. He is known for having been part of several significant constitutional benches during his tenure, as noted by LiveLaw. The decision to appoint Jospeh, who has a strong record on constitutional issues, adds weight to the exercise.

The committee’s recommendations could eventually serve as a formal blueprint for other opposition-ruled states with similar concerns.

The Constitution establishes a federal structure that provides for legislative assemblies and governments in each state, empowering them to make laws and govern their own affairs. States also hold financial authority, including the power to collect certain taxes and allocate resources for local development.

This framework, however, exists alongside a strong central government. The division of powers between the Union and the states is laid out in the Seventh Schedule, which comprises three lists: the Union List, the State List and the Concurrent List.

The Union List includes subjects like defence, foreign affairs and atomic energy, on which only the Parliament can make laws. The State List covers areas such as police, public health and agriculture—subjects that fall exclusively under the purview of state legislatures. On the Concurrent List, which includes education, forest laws and marriage, both the Centre and the states can legislate. However, if there is any conflict between state and central law on these matters, the central law prevails.

Further, centrally sponsored schemes—programmes funded largely or entirely by the Union government but implemented by state governments, often in areas like health, education and agriculture that fall under the State List—come with guidelines, targets and conditions set by the Centre. This restricts the states’ flexibility to design or modify these schemes based on local priorities and reduces their control over subjects that are constitutionally within their domain. Many states view this as a form of indirect control that undermines their autonomy in planning and governance.