Wed Jan 07 00:00:00 UTC 2026: # Political Turmoil in Tamil Nadu: Governor’s Convoy Attacked, Accusations Fly

The Story:
On April 10, 1995, Tamil Nadu Governor M. Channa Reddy’s convoy was attacked by members of the ruling AIADMK party in Tindivanam. The attack, led by S.S. Panneerselvam, was a response to the Governor’s support of Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy, who was seeking to prosecute Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa on corruption charges. The incident escalated into a political crisis, with Jayalalithaa accusing Reddy of bias and urging the central government to recall him.

Jayalalithaa defended her party’s actions, claiming the demonstrators were simply expressing their democratic rights against Reddy’s perceived encouragement of trouble-makers. She insisted that the police had the situation under control and that the Governor exaggerated the incident to create a false impression of chaos in Tamil Nadu, potentially justifying intervention from the central government under Article 356 of the Constitution.

Key Points:

  • On April 10, 1995, Governor M. Channa Reddy’s convoy was attacked in Tindivanam by AIADMK members.
  • The attack was led by S.S. Panneerselvam, protesting Reddy’s support of Subramanian Swamy, who sought to prosecute Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa on corruption allegations.
  • Reddy reported the incident to the central government, implying police complicity in the demonstration.
  • Jayalalithaa accused Reddy of acting with “pre-meditated bias” and urged his recall, disclosing letters to the President and Prime Minister in the Legislative Assembly on April 19, 1995.
  • Jayalalithaa claimed the Governor was attempting to create a false narrative to enable the dismissal of the State Government under Article 356 of the Constitution.
  • Following a regime change in 1996, a case was booked against Mr. Panneerselvam and others and prosecution was initiated.

Key Takeaways:

  • The incident highlights the tense relationship between the Governor and the Chief Minister in Tamil Nadu in 1995, driven by corruption allegations and political maneuvering.
  • The Chief Minister’s response reveals a deep concern about potential central government intervention in state affairs using Article 356.
  • The event underscores the use of public demonstrations as political tools and the complex dynamics between law enforcement, political parties, and state governance.
  • The case booked against Mr. Panneerselvam after the regime change in 1996 shows the use of legal means to address political grievances and settle scores.

    Read More

Related News: