Before Vijay, Recalling India’s First Hung Assembly, Also in Madras
C. Joseph Vijay took oath as Chief Minister on Sunday after high political drama in Tamil Nadu, despite his Tamilaga Vetri Kazhagam (TVK) emerging as the single largest party. The Governor initially refused to invite him, demanding signed letters of support from a majority of MLAs before administering the oath. After three visits to Raj Bhavan and last-minute support from smaller parties, Vijay was finally sworn in. The political crisis was averted, but it evoked memories of a similar drama that played out nearly 75 years ago in the same region.
The 1952 Assembly election in the erstwhile Madras state—comprising present-day Tamil Nadu and parts of Kerala, Karnataka, and undivided Andhra Pradesh—threw up India’s very first fractured verdict. The election to the 375-seat Madras Assembly was held in January 1952, with no party securing an outright majority. The Indian National Congress, which had led the freedom movement and dominated the first general election nationally, won 152 seats—far short of the 188 needed for a majority. The Communist Party of India (CPI) came second, followed by the Kisan Mazdoor Praja Party (KMPP), founded by J.B. Kripalani. There were also 63 independent members. The verdict was a shock to the Congress establishment, which had expected a clean sweep.
Historian Rajmohan Gandhi, in Rajaji: A Life, attributed the Congress’s lacklustre performance to many factors: a severe foodgrain crisis that had eroded public confidence in the government, the growing appeal of the Communists who had organised peasants and workers, and strong support for a former Congress leader in the Telugu-speaking region. This leader was Tanguturi Prakasam, a former premier (equivalent to Chief Minister) of the Madras presidency. Though he had lost his own seat, Prakasam claimed the support of a front of 166 MLAs. His claim was never proved, but it was enough to create uncertainty.
This left the Madras Governor, Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji of Bhavnagar, in a quandary. On one side was Prakasam’s claim. On the other was the Congress, and its leader K. Kamaraj’s assertion that “only the Congress is going to rule.” The Governor, uncertain of whom to invite, referred the question to the President of India. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was clear in his preference for an elected government over President’s Rule. He was also keen that the party “avoid any appearance of hankering after office.” The Congress could not be seen as desperate for power. But neither could it afford to sit in opposition.
As the situation continued to fester, the Congress was internally forming a consensus around a single name: C. Rajagopalachari, or “Rajaji.” Rajaji was one of the most important figures of the freedom movement. In 1948, he had become Governor-General, independent India’s first Indian head of state. He had also served as Governor of West Bengal. His prestige was immense. The thinking was that the prestige he commanded would ensure support for his government, even from independents and opposition members.
Rajaji’s elevation was also backed by the new Governor of Madras state, Sri Prakasa. According to Rajmohan Gandhi, Sri Prakasa wrote to President Rajendra Prasad: “After endless parleys, everybody came to one and only one solution—that the only person who could save the situation was Rajaji.” Later in March, Madras Congress leader Kumaraswami Raja conveyed to Rajaji the state legislature party’s resolution backing him. Nehru accepted that decision, but he hesitated about effectively parachuting a non-elected person into the Chief Minister’s post. Rajaji, however, was also clear: he would not stand for election. He was 74 years old and had already held the highest offices in the land. He would not campaign.
Following discussions among Governor Sri Prakasa, Kumaraswami Raja, and Rajaji, a solution was found: Rajaji would be nominated to the Upper House of the state legislature (the Legislative Council). President Prasad was informed about this on April 1. Kumaraswami Raja, with the Governor’s cooperation, moved swiftly to swear Rajaji in as Chief Minister, “before Nehru could come to know of CR’s inflexible condition.” Nehru was clearly unhappy with being blindsided, and expressed this in a letter to the Governor on April 3. But he also acknowledged: “At the same time, I could suggest no other and better alternative to all this and so I left it to our friends in Madras.”
The parallels with the current situation are striking. In 1952, as in 2026, no party had a majority. The Congress, like the TVK today, was the single largest party but short of a majority. The Governor, then as now, faced a difficult choice. And the solution, then as now, involved the single largest party taking the support of smaller parties and independents to form a government. Rajaji took the support of several independents and smaller parties to keep the Communist-led opposition out of power. Vijay has done the same, allying with the Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) and the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) to reach the magic number.
But there were also concerns in 1952 that echo today. According to Nehru, President Prasad had termed Rajaji’s nomination to the Legislative Council as “a wrong step, wrong not only in the spirit of the Constitution but also the letter of it.” Nehru’s key concern, as expressed in a letter to Governor Sri Prakasa, was that it could set a bad precedent. A non-elected person becoming Chief Minister, even if nominated to the Upper House, was constitutionally questionable. The same concern has been raised in the current context: should a Governor demand proof of majority before inviting the single largest party? The 1952 precedent suggests that the Governor’s role is to invite the person most likely to command confidence, not to demand pre-swearing-in proof of an absolute majority.
The 1952 Madras hung Assembly was a test of India’s young democracy. It passed the test. A government was formed, and it lasted. The 2026 Tamil Nadu hung Assembly is another test. The outcome is still uncertain. But the lesson from 1952 is clear: the Constitution provides a framework for resolving hung Assemblies. The Governor must act as a neutral arbiter, not as an agent of the Centre. And the political parties must find a way to form a stable government without subverting the democratic process. The drama in Tamil Nadu is not new. It is as old as Indian democracy itself.
Questions and Answers
Q1: What was the composition of the 1952 Madras Assembly after the election, and why was it significant?
A1: The Congress won 152 seats, far short of the 188 needed for a majority. The CPI came second, followed by the KMPP, and there were 63 independents. It was significant because it was India’s very first fractured verdict—the first hung Assembly in the country’s history.
Q2: Who was Tanguturi Prakasam, and what claim did he make after the election?
A2: Prakasam was a former premier of the Madras presidency who had lost his own seat but claimed the support of a front of 166 MLAs. His claim was never proved, but it was enough to create uncertainty and complicate government formation.
Q3: Why was C. Rajagopalachari (Rajaji) chosen as the consensus candidate to lead the government?
A3: Rajaji was chosen because of his immense prestige as a freedom movement leader and former Governor-General. The thinking was that the prestige he commanded would ensure support for his government, even from independents and opposition members, and that he could “save the situation.”
Q4: What constitutional solution was devised to make Rajaji the Chief Minister without him contesting an election?
A4: Rajaji was nominated to the Upper House of the state legislature (the Legislative Council). This allowed him to become Chief Minister without standing for election, a solution that President Prasad reportedly termed “a wrong step, wrong not only in the spirit of the Constitution but also the letter of it.”
Q5: What parallels does the article draw between the 1952 Madras hung Assembly and the 2026 Tamil Nadu hung Assembly?
A5: Both situations involved no party having a majority, with the single largest party (Congress in 1952, TVK in 2026) taking the support of smaller parties and independents to form a government. Both also involved controversial Governor interventions. The article suggests that the 1952 precedent shows the Governor should invite the person most likely to command confidence, not demand pre-swearing-in proof of majority.
