Tamil Nadu's resolution on state autonomy, announced by Chief Minister MK Stalin on April 15, 2025, represents a watershed moment in India's federal evolution. By establishing a high-level committee to examine Centre-State relations, Tamil Nadu has reignited a decades-old debate about the distribution of power in the world's largest democracy. This bold move emerges from mounting tensions over fiscal devolution, education policy, and representation—tensions that reveal deep fault lines in India's constitutional framework.

The resolution, introduced under Rule 110 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, establishes a three-member committee chaired by former Supreme Court Justice Kurian Joseph, with retired IAS officer Ashok Vardhan Shetty and economist M Naganathan as members. Their mandate is comprehensive: review constitutional provisions and policies governing Centre-State relations, evaluate the impact of subjects transferred from the State List to the Concurrent List, and recommend measures to enhance Tamil Nadu's administrative, legislative, and judicial autonomy while preserving national unity. The committee will submit an interim report by January 2026 and a final report within two years, indicating the DMK government's commitment to long-term federal reform.

Tamil Nadu's push for greater autonomy is deeply rooted in its political history. The state pioneered federalism advocacy in 1969 when then-Chief Minister M Karunanidhi established the Rajamannar Committee, which laid the groundwork for demanding greater state powers. The resulting 1974 resolution urged the Centre to establish a truly federal structure, a legacy Stalin explicitly invoked when introducing the current resolution. This historical trajectory reveals a consistent thread in Tamil Nadu's political consciousness—a belief in decentralised governance that predates even the Emergency-era 42nd Amendment, which significantly expanded central powers. The DMK's current autonomy push represents not merely political opportunism but the continuation of a half-century struggle against what the party perceives as encroaching centralisation.

Today's autonomy demands respond to specific contemporary challenges: disputes over the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET), resistance to the National Education Policy (NEP), concerns about the Goods and Services Tax (GST), and apprehension regarding the upcoming delimitation of parliamentary constituencies. Each issue represents a distinct domain—education, fiscal policy, political representation—where Tamil Nadu perceives central overreach threatening its governance model.

At the heart of Tamil Nadu's grievances lies the perception that the Union government has systematically eroded state authority. Stalin has accused the Centre of imposing policies that undermine Tamil Nadu's governance model, citing NEET as a prime example. The state has consistently opposed this standardised medical entrance examination, arguing it disadvantages students from the state board curriculum and infringes on Tamil Nadu's constitutional right to regulate education. The Supreme Court's recent rejection of Tamil Nadu's bill seeking exemption from NEET has only intensified these concerns, especially when coupled with allegations that the Centre withheld ?2,500 crore in education funds to pressure compliance with the NEP. This funding dispute exemplifies how fiscal levers can be used to enforce policy conformity, a dynamic that has fueled Tamil Nadu's calls for greater independence.

Education policy remains a flashpoint, with Tamil Nadu rejecting the NEP's three-language formula as an implicit attempt to impose Hindi in a state committed to a two-language policy of Tamil and English. This linguistic stance isn't merely cultural—it has underpinned Tamil Nadu's educational and economic success, creating a skilled workforce that dominates sectors like information technology and manufacturing. The state's gross enrollment ratio in higher education exceeds 51%, compared to the national average of 27.1%. Tamil Nadu attributes the success story to its autonomy in educational governance—autonomy now perceived to be under threat. The state's healthcare model, which boasts infant mortality rates comparable to developed nations, further demonstrates its administrative capabilities and strengthens its case for self-governance.

Fiscal federalism constitutes another critical dimension of Tamil Nadu's autonomy demands. As India's second-largest economy contributing approximately 9.5% of the national GDP, the state contributes significantly to Union revenues yet receives only 29 paise for every rupee it contributes—a disparity Stalin decried as "grossly unfair." The introduction of GST in 2017, despite Tamil Nadu's objections, curtailed the state's independent revenue-raising ability by replacing state-controlled taxes with a centralised system. The state's manufacturing hubs, particularly in automotive and textile sectors around Chennai, Coimbatore, and Tiruppur, have experienced revenue losses estimated at ?7,000 crore annually since GST implementation. Meanwhile, Finance Commission recommendations have been criticised for favouring northern states with higher populations over southern states like Tamil Nadu, which have successfully controlled population growth. This fiscal imbalance fuels demands for greater control over economic resources.

The pending delimitation exercise in 2026 adds urgency to Tamil Nadu's autonomy push. The state fears this redrawing of parliamentary constituencies based on population will reduce its representation in the Lok Sabha from the current 39 seats, shifting political power toward northern states with higher population growth. Projections suggest Tamil Nadu could lose up to five seats, while states like Uttar Pradesh might gain additional representation. This concern is shared by other southern states, as evidenced by Stalin's efforts to convene southern Chief Ministers in opposition to delimitation. The resolution positions Tamil Nadu as defending equitable representation, arguing that states should not be penalised for effective governance, including Tamil Nadu's success in reducing fertility rates to 1.4, well below the national replacement rate of 2.1.

The committee's composition lends credibility to this mission. Justice Kurian Joseph, known for his landmark judgments supporting federalism during his Supreme Court tenure, brings legal expertise and a reputation for judicial independence to navigate complex constitutional questions. Ashok Vardhan Shetty offers administrative insight from his experiences in governance, having implemented successful state-led initiatives that balanced central directives with local needs. M Naganathan provides an economic perspective on fiscal federalism, with particular expertise in revenue-sharing mechanisms. Their collective expertise suggests a rigorous approach that could produce recommendations influencing the national discourse on federalism.

Enhanced autonomy offers Tamil Nadu several potential benefits. It would enable the state to tailor policies to its unique socio-economic context, preserving advantages like its two-language policy while avoiding misaligned national frameworks like NEET or the NEP. Greater fiscal autonomy would allow Tamil Nadu to invest in infrastructure, healthcare, and education without dependence on a Union government perceived as prioritising other regions. The state's governance track record—evidenced by its social development indicators and economic contributions—suggests it is well-equipped to exercise self-governance effectively. Tamil Nadu's industrial corridors and special economic zones, which have attracted over $30 billion in foreign direct investment since 2010, demonstrate its capacity to formulate and implement economic policy independently.

Politically, the resolution strengthens the DMK's position as a champion of Tamil identity and federalism—a narrative that resonates with its voter base. By framing the committee's work as a defence of all states' rights, Stalin positions Tamil Nadu as a leader in a broader federal movement, potentially building alliances with other non-BJP-ruled states like Kerala, where Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan has expressed similar concerns about fiscal autonomy, and Karnataka, where regional sentiments have intensified following disputes over the Cauvery river water sharing. The Supreme Court's recent ruling against Tamil Nadu's Governor RN Ravi for delaying bills, which Stalin hailed as a victory for cooperative federalism, further bolsters the DMK's moral authority to challenge perceived central overreach.

However, significant challenges could limit the resolution's impact. The BJP in Tamil Nadu, led by state president Nainar Nagenthiran, has condemned it as a "separatist act," accusing the DMK of centralising power for itself while ironically opposing central authority. The BJP state unit argues that the resolution undermines national cohesion and economic integration at a time when global competitiveness demands unified policy approaches. While this characterisation exaggerates the resolution's intent, it reflects the BJP's strategy to frame autonomy demands as threats to national unity. The BJP's assembly walkout, alongside the AIADMK's protest over procedural issues, signals resistance that could undermine the committee's legitimacy if its recommendations are perceived as partisan.

Opposition voices within Tamil Nadu offer alternative perspectives. Former Chief Minister O Panneerselvam has characterised the autonomy push as a "political theatre" that neglects pressing issues like water resource management and infrastructure development. The AIADMK, while historically supporting greater state rights, questions the timing and implementation of the current initiative, suggesting it diverts attention from governance failures. While politically motivated, these critiques highlight legitimate concerns about prioritising institutional reform over immediate development needs.

Constitutional realities may constrain the committee's ambitions. As Dr BR Ambedkar noted during its drafting, India's Constitution establishes a quasi-federal structure where the Union holds significant authority, particularly over Concurrent List subjects like education. Reversing the 42nd Amendment, which transferred education to the Concurrent List, would require a constitutional amendment—a politically contentious process requiring a two-thirds parliamentary majority, unlikely given the BJP's current dominance. Previous attempts at federal restructuring, including the Sarkaria Commission (1983-87) and the Punchhi Commission (2007-10), produced recommendations that were largely shelved, illustrating the institutional inertia against fundamental federal reform. The committee's recommendations, however well-crafted, may struggle to gain traction nationally, especially if perceived as favouring southern states over northern ones.

The resolution risks exacerbating regional tensions. Tamil Nadu's autonomy advocacy, particularly its opposition to delimitation, could be interpreted as preserving disproportionate influence at the expense of northern states with growing populations. This perception could deepen India's north-south divide, complicating efforts to build national consensus on federal reforms. Stalin's inclusive rhetoric—that Tamil Nadu's fight benefits all states—attempts to mitigate this risk, but the committee's focus on state-specific grievances may limit its broader appeal. The potential coalition of southern states against delimitation could reinforce regional polarisation, compromising the pan-Indian appeal necessary for constitutional reform.

The resolution's timing, ahead of the 2026 assembly elections, raises questions about political motivations. Critics, including Tamil Maanila Congress president GK Vasan, argue that the DMK is using autonomy as a populist tool to deflect attention from governance challenges, including persistent urban flooding in Chennai and rising unemployment among educated youth. The AIADMK's dismissal of the initiative as a "big drama" reflects scepticism about its sincerity. If the committee's work is perceived as politically motivated rather than a genuine reform effort, its recommendations may lack credibility, reducing its policy influence.

Internationally, similar federalism debates offer instructive parallels. Spain's autonomous communities system, particularly Catalonia's push for greater independence, demonstrates how linguistic and cultural identity can drive autonomy demands, while Canada's asymmetric federalism illustrates how provinces can exercise varied degrees of autonomy within a unified nation. Germany's cooperative federalism model, where states implement federal legislation with significant discretion, offers a potential middle path between centralisation and complete autonomy. These international examples could inform Tamil Nadu's approach, suggesting federalism models that balance regional autonomy with national cohesion.

Economically, greater autonomy presents mixed prospects. While Tamil Nadu would benefit from increased fiscal control, particularly in prioritising infrastructure investments in its western industrial belt and coastal economic zones, overreliance on state resources could strain finances, especially if Union grants diminish. The state's manufacturing sector depends on national markets and infrastructure, requiring continued cooperation with the Centre. Tamil Nadu's export-oriented economy, with annual overseas shipments totalling $36 billion, necessitates coordination with central agencies on trade policy, customs regulations, and international agreements. Excessive decentralisation could disrupt these linkages, potentially harming economic competitiveness. Moreover, the committee's two-year timeline means tangible outcomes may not materialise before the 2026 elections, limiting immediate economic impact.

The resolution carries profound implications for India's federal structure. Tamil Nadu's initiative could inspire other states to demand similar autonomy, challenging central authority and prompting a reevaluation of federal principles. States with strong regional identities, like Punjab, West Bengal, and Maharashtra, might leverage Tamil Nadu's precedent to advocate for their own autonomy measures. If grounded in constitutional scholarship and practical governance insights, the committee's recommendations could offer a blueprint for balancing state and Union powers in a diverse nation. However, without national consensus, these efforts risk dismissal as regional posturing, perpetuating the status quo.

Cultural identity intertwines with Tamil Nadu's autonomy demands. The state's resistance to Hindi imposition and defence of Tamil reflect assertions of linguistic and cultural autonomy dating back to anti-Hindi agitations of the 1960s. By linking these cultural concerns to federalism, the DMK taps into deep-seated sentiment that strengthens its political narrative. Yet, this focus on Tamil identity could potentially alienate non-Tamil-speaking communities within the state or complicate alliances with states lacking similar linguistic homogeneity. The challenge for Tamil Nadu lies in articulating an autonomy framework that preserves cultural distinctiveness while embracing constitutional pluralism.

Tamil Nadu's resolution represents both aspiration and pragmatism—seeking to reclaim powers eroded by centralisation while navigating India's complex federal framework. Its success depends on the committee's rigour, the DMK's political strategy, and the Centre's willingness to engage. The resolution has already catalysed crucial discussions about autonomy, representation, and resource allocation—discussions essential to India's continued democratic evolution. Whether it achieves concrete reforms or merely articulates grievances, Tamil Nadu's autonomy push underscores the enduring tension between centralised governance and regional self-determination in diverse federal democracies.