On 15th August 2025, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin announced the formation of a high-level committee to explore “state autonomy,” claiming the move was necessary to protect federal values and retrieve certain powers—like education—from the concurrent list.
Headed by retired Supreme Court judge Kurien Joseph, the committee has been tasked with evaluating how Tamil Nadu can reclaim control over subjects such as education, which currently fall under shared jurisdiction with the Centre.
But despite being presented as a federalist move, this step raises serious constitutional, political, and national concerns.
A Move Timed with Political Convenience (Stalin)
Tamil Nadu is set to face Assembly elections in 2026. The Stalin government is currently battling criticism over issues like NEET, law and order, and stalled development. The autonomy panel’s timing suggests this may be a calculated political tool, not a constitutional necessity.
Stalin has repeatedly opposed the NEET exam and the National Education Policy, claiming they infringe on state rights. Yet, education was moved to the concurrent list in 1976 through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, a change accepted across political parties to ensure uniform national education standards.
Now, Stalin wants it reversed—not via parliamentary debate, but through public pressure and regional mobilisation.
What the Constitution Actually Says
India’s federal structure is not based on equal sovereignty between the Centre and states. Article 1 describes India as a “Union of States”, where the Centre has overriding powers in matters of national interest. The concurrent list exists to allow cooperation—not conflict.
Education, health, and criminal law—these are shared areas for a reason. Uniformity helps national integration, professional mobility, and standardized access. If each state begins cherry-picking national policy based on political preference, constitutional cohesion breaks down.
The Kashmir Parallel: A Cautionary Tale (Stalin)
Stalin’s move is being compared—rightly or wrongly—to Kashmir’s pre-2019 autonomy under Article 370. While Tamil Nadu’s situation is vastly different, the principle of asymmetric governance led to decades of instability in Jammu & Kashmir.
Until Article 370 was abrogated in 2019, many central laws—including those related to education and property—were not applicable in the state. This led to policy isolation, limited development, and legal confusion.
Is Tamil Nadu heading down a similar road?
A Legal Committee Won’t Change the Constitution
Ultimately, the retrieval of concurrent list powers would require a constitutional amendment, passed by both Houses of Parliament with a two-thirds majority. No committee—however prestigious—can bypass that.
This makes the entire exercise politically symbolic at best, and legally ineffective at worst.
Unity Is Not Separatism
Healthy Centre-state dialogue is vital. Tamil Nadu’s growth depends on cooperation, not confrontation.
India cannot afford a precedent where regional parties start framing central laws as central interference. The more this narrative takes root, the harder it becomes to maintain national policy uniformity and constitutional integrity.
Reform by Law, Not Rhetoric
If Stalin believes certain central policies are unfair, his government has every right to protest democratically. But forming a legal committee to demand autonomy before elections—and framing it as a battle for Tamil identity—is not federalism. It’s opportunism.
India is one nation. That unity must be respected—not tested for political mileage.