The office of the Governor has rarely generated as much heat across India as it has in Tamil Nadu. A prolonged standoff between Lok Bhavan and the elected government over legislations, especially the NEET Exemption Bill, public statements, and the boundaries of constitutional propriety eventually drew the Supreme Court into the picture. While one bench prescribed timelines for assent on bills and ruled that Governors cannot indefinitely delay bills under Article 200, a bigger Constitution bench, responding to a presidential reference, held that the actions of the President and Governor are non-justiciable.
The divergence brought into focus sharp questions nagging Indian federalism: who, exactly, is the Governor accountable to, and what rules bind him? It is in this backdrop that the recommendations of the Justice Kurian Joseph Committee, tasked by the TN government to study constitutional provisions and suggest reforms to strengthen federalism, are important. The committee recommended "a single, fixed, non-renewable five-year term" for the Governor and put limits on his discretionary powers, apart from recommending fixed timelines for gubernatorial assent to bills. The suggestions, however, cannot be actioned upon for obvious reasons.
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin constituted the high-level committee headed by retired Supreme Court judge Kurian Joseph on April 15, 2025. Its members include former IAS officer K Ashok Vardhan Shetty and former TN Planning Commission Vice-Chairman Dr M Naganathan. The committee’s terms of reference were in line with the DMK's long standing political demand for greater autonomy in the state.
The panel submitted its first report on February 16, which contains a whole range of recommendations from constitutional amendment procedures to instructions for the governor's office, barring Speakers from adjudicating defection cases, making English a permanent official language alongside all Eighth Schedule languages, requiring state consent for territorial reorganisation, and rebalancing the GST Council's voting structure.
Constitutional amendment procedures
The committee recommended that every constitutional amendment bill "must secure not less than two-thirds majority of the total membership of each house under Article 368(2)." Barring a few amendments, it also recommended that all amendments require "ratification by State Legislatures under the double-majority rule", where "not less than two-thirds of states represent not less than two-thirds of India's population." Importantly, it said that legislative proposals adopted by state assemblies can go to Parliament only if they involve a Constitutional amendment.
"If a proposal to amend the Constitution is adopted by two-thirds of the State Legislatures representing two-thirds of India's population, it shall be considered by Parliament," the report said, adding that there shall be no amendment that would take away or destroy the basic features of the Constitution. Further, the committee recommended a cooling-off period for voting for a Constitution amendment Bill.
No House of Parliament or State Legislature shall take up a Constitution amendment Bill for final voting in the same session in which it was introduced, the report said, adding no such bill can be introduced without three months of prior public consultation.
Reining in Governor
The report suggests a complete overhaul in the process of appointing a Governor, taking the discretion away from the Union and vesting it the the state. It recommends that the President appoint "one of the three names approved by a majority of the total membership of the State Legislative Assembly." The state legislature, in other words, gets a big say in deciding who occupies Lok Bhavan.
The report goes on to add that the Governor would serve a single fixed non-renewable five-year term and could be removed only through a resolution passed by a majority of the State Legislative Assembly. In other words, the Centre cannot recall the Governor at will, making the Governor ultimately answerable to the state's elected House.
On the question of bills, the committee proposes hard deadlines. Governors would be barred from reserving state bills for Presidential consideration except in the limited circumstances permitted under Article 200; they would anyway have to act within 15 days, and would have to assent to re-passed bills within a further 15 days, the panel recommended.
Territorial integrity of states
The committee suggested curtailing powers of the Union and expanding the scope for states. "All territorial reorganisation under Article 3 should operate as State-specific constitutional amendments requiring the affected States' concurrence."
For creating a new state, if the legislature withholds consent, the panel called for a consultation with people in that state. The President may order a referendum in the affected area, which will succeed only if at least three-fourths of voters participate, and two-thirds approve, it said.
The committee further proposed a ban on the creation of new Union Territories and mooted "decennial referendums" for existing ones (excluding Delhi), offering a choice to either merge with a neighbouring state or become an independent state.
Language policy
The report makes sweeping recommendations on the language policy. Stating that the Union should correct the census distortions by ending the misclassification of 53 independent languages such as Bhojpuri, Rajasthani, Chhattisgarhi etc, the report sought to present the true percentage of Hindi speakers, which is about 25% and not 43.6%. It called to include all languages with more than one million native speakers in the Eighth Schedule, along with Pali and Prakrit and English.
Rejecting the "One Nation, One Language" idea, the committee proposed replacing the three-language formula with a two-language formula. "English for economic mobility and global competitiveness, and the regional language or mother tongue for cultural continuity," the report said. It also called for amending Article 343 to constitutionally recognise English as a permanent official language of the Union.
Delimitation and parliamentary representation
To address states' fears of losing parliamentary representation due to successful population control, the committee proposed extending the freeze on inter-state seat allocation, anchored to the 1971 Census, until 2126, or until the Total Fertility Rates (TFRs) of all states converge within a narrow band. For the Rajya Sabha, the committee demanded a fundamental reform, saying equal representation of states in the Upper House is indispensable to federal balance. “The present disparity—ranging from one to thirty-one seats per State—dilutes the chamber's role as a true House of States," the committee pointed out and recommended "a uniform allocation of six seats per State."
Education, elections and anti-defection
Declaring that education requires a decisive break from excessive regulation, the committee proposed transferring it from the Concurrent List back to the State List. Calling to disband the National Testing Agency and abolish NEET, the committee recommended to amend the NMC Act, 2019 and repeal Section 14, to abolish NEET at all levels (UG, PG, and SS), and restore admissions to states and universities aligned with public health needs.
On elections, the report rejected the ‘One Nation, One Election’ proposal. It suggested making a member ineligible to contest any election if he/she is disqualified for defection.
Health and GST
On health, the report demanded that the Union desist from intruding in the state’s domain of health. Calling to restore state control over medical education and workforce planning, the report said, "Admissions, curricula, residencies, and clinical training must reflect local language, epidemiology and service needs."
Regarding the GST Council, the committee suggested four options to rebalance voting power, from raising the quorum to two-thirds to a "One Member, One Vote" model. "The Union's vote share should be reduced from 33.33 per cent to 20 per cent, with the States' collective weight increased to 80 per cent," the report recommended.
The committee also demanded "restoring legislative supremacy in GST" by clarifying that "the Council's decisions are advisory, subject to the concurrent legislative powers of the Union and the States." It also proposed establishing an independent GST Council Secretariat and a GST Dispute Settlement Authority (DSA)—a three-member tribunal chaired by a retired Supreme Court judge.