The Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK)-led regime’s experiment of co-habitation in administration — two advisers to Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay alongside Chief Secretary M. Sai Kumar — is creating mixed vibes in official circles.

It is not for the first time that the State government has appointed advisers. At different points of time, since 1989, various regimes had advisors to Chief Ministers, starting from the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK). But, Tamil Nadu’s experiences were not pleasant all the time. Invariably, differences cropped up between advisers and Chief Secretaries.

In late January 1989,  former Finance Secretary S. Guhan, who had a stint with the Willy Brandt Commission, was made adviser to Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi. He remained in the post till June 1990, when he was made a Member of the State Planning Commission. The talk that did rounds then was that the relationship between him and the then Chief Secretary M.M. Rajendran was not great. In May 1998, the outgoing Chief Secretary K.A. Nambiar was offered the post, but he did not take up the assignment.

During the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK)’s government, when Jayalalithaa and her successor O. Panneerselvam were at the helm of affairs, former Chief Secretary Sheela Balakrishnan served as adviser to them nearly for three years (March 2014-February 2017). She was perceived to be so powerful that, many officials felt then, she had overshadowed Chief Secretaries of the period. Not only that, in September 2014, at the time of the conviction of Jayalalithaa in a disproportionate assets case, Ms. Balakrishnan’s name did the rounds as a possible successor. During February-April 2021, former Chief Secretary K. Shanmugam held the post.  As per the government’s rules of business, files do not pass through advisers.

Given this background, the appointment of Vishnu Reddy and John Arockiasamy as advisers to the present Chief Minister in May had evoked scepticism in certain circles whether this arrangement would be a smooth affair. Apart from the two advisers, the Chief Minister is aided by a team of four IAS officers, one of whom has 30-odd years’ experience.

“There is absolutely no issue on the issue of advisers to the Chief Minister,” says one group of officials, who are of the view that the demarcation of functions has been “so clear” that there is no room for any conflict. “The advisers are for the Chief Minister. One takes care of political affairs and another, public events and general matters. It is quite natural that they examine any policy matter, on which decisions are to be taken, from the angle of political implications,” observe these officials. Secretaries take instructions from their Ministers and the Chief Secretary, they add.

However, there is another view in the bureaucracy that Dr. Sai Kumar is “in full control” of the administration, and he, at times, conveys the message that he is the boss, giving the impression that the position of the advisers is less important. In fact, during the recent Budget Session of the Assembly, his grip was considered so tight that some Ministers did not know beforehand of the Chief Minister’s statements made in the House under Rule 110. Even though sections of the media have written that the TVK-led regime is “peeved” with the Chief Secretary over the Navodaya school row, another group of officials dismisses the reports and says that the Chief Secretary enjoys the “utmost confidence” of Mr. Vijay, and this is why he has been able to assert his position.