Centre- state relations ( Important for APSC)

Centre- state relations ( Important for APSC) The historical trajectory of Centre-State Relations in India delineates four distinctive phases, each marked by distinct characteristics. Commencing in 1950 and spanning 17 years, the initial phase laid the foundation for these relationships. Subsequent phases unfolded, shaping the landscape of governance and power dynamics between the central and state authorities. The culmination of this evolutionary process led to the onset of the fourth phase, which commenced in 1989, signifying a new era in these relations.

Recognizing the complexities and conflicts inherent in these relationships, the Government of India took a proactive step by establishing the Sarkaria Commission in 1983. This commission was tasked with the critical mission of devising strategies to mitigate and minimize the conflicts that often arose between the Central Government and State Governments. Through its recommendations and insights, the Sarkaria Commission aimed to foster a more harmonious and effective framework for collaboration and coordination between the different tiers of governance within the nation.

What are central state relation?

India’s federal system is often described as quasi-federal, embodying federal elements in structure while carrying a unitary essence. The constitutional delineation of Union-state relations leans significantly towards centralization, contributing to a greater concentration of power at the center. Consequently, this imbalance often becomes a source of grievance for the states, highlighting their concerns within the framework of the nation’s governance.

The dynamics of Centre-state relations encompass three key aspects:

1. Legislative Interaction

2. Executive and Administrative Connectivity

3. Financial Interdependence

Legislative Relations:

• Articles 245 to 255 in Part XI of the Constitution govern the legislative ties between the Centre and the states. India’s federal character divides legislative authority concerning territory and subjects between the Centre and states.
•  Distribution of Legislative Subjects (Article 246): The Constitution segregates subjects between the Centre and states via three lists – List-I (Union), List-II (State), and List-III (Concurrent) in the Seventh Schedule.
• Parliament Legislation in State Field (Article 249): During extraordinary circumstances, the distribution of powers can be altered or suspended.

Administrative Relations (Article 256-263):

•  Articles from 256 to 263 in Part XI of the Constitution handle administrative relationships between the Centre and states.

Financial Relations (Article 256-291):

• Articles from 268 to 293 in Part XII of the Constitution delineate Centre-state financial relations. Taxation responsibilities adhere to the federal division of powers, with the Centre responsible for fund allocation to states.
•  Schedule VII outlines the tax levying authority of the Centre and states.
• The Goods and Services Tax (GST), a dual-structured tax, exemplifies a contemporary financial interplay between the Centre and states.

The architects of the Indian Constitution envisioned a robust central authority, viewing federalism as a pragmatic tool for forging a united Indian nation and a cohesive state. This vision has been substantiated by the practical functioning of the federation over the past 66 years, delineated into four distinct phases across different timeframes.

1. The first phase (1950-1967)

2. The second phase (1967-1977)

3. The third phase (1977-1989)

4. The fourth phase (1989-onwards)

The first phase (1950-1967)

During the initial phase of Indian Federalism (1950-1967), the dominance of the Congress party wielded significant influence over both the central and state governments. Nehru’s charismatic leadership further bolstered the central authority. Centre-state issues were often resolved within the party structure, underscoring the party’s internal mechanisms as a means of resolution.

The Planning Commission and the National Development Council (NDC), established through executive resolutions, became instruments through which the Centre extended its control over states. Although designed for handling state subjects such as education, health, agriculture, and social welfare, the Planning Commission’s purview extended into these domains. The NDC aimed to foster cooperative federalism but ended up witnessing instances where states relinquished their sales tax authority on certain commodities to the Centre.

Despite this central dominance, Nehru actively engaged in fostering democratic principles by regularly communicating with state chief ministers, seeking their opinions, and striving to build a national consensus. The Indian National Congress institutionalized consultation and accommodation, managing internal factions within the ‘Congress System’. This approach involved co-opting local and regional leaders into the national power structure and deploying Congress representatives to mediate disputes within provinces, thereby legitimizing provincial autonomy while acknowledging central mediation.

Overall, this phase exhibited significant central control over states, with some powers willingly ceded to the Centre. The establishment of Zonal Councils under the States Reorganization Act aimed at promoting cooperative federalism in devising uniform socio-economic policies but operated within the overarching framework of central dominance over states.

 The second phase (1967-1977)

The fourth general election was a pivotal moment in India’s federal landscape, significantly reducing the Congress party’s overwhelming majority to a simple one at the Centre. Nearly half of the Indian states shifted to opposition or coalition governance, triggering a transformative shift in centre-state relations. This phase witnessed heightened state assertion countered by the Centre’s display of effective power.

Facing diminished influence, the Congress party resorted to various tactics, including engineering defections and utilizing Article 356, to regain political control. The Rajasthan incident exemplified this, with the Governor recommending President’s rule to thwart an opposition coalition from forming a government, ultimately resulting in the Congress forming the state government after orchestrating defections.

From 1967 to 1971, Union-state conflicts peaked as the Union government resisted non-Congress state governments’ demands for rights. Concurrently, the emergence of regional forces capitalized on the Congress party’s weakening, reshaping the political landscape. Mrs. Gandhi leveraged Congress dominance to bolster the Centre, evident in the controversial 42nd Amendment to the constitution, augmenting central authority at the states’ expense. This centralization trend reached its pinnacle during the contentious Emergency of 1975-77.

. The third phase (1977-1989)

The 1977 election marked a significant shift as the Congress lost its central power for the first time post-independence, ushering in the Janata Party, which championed decentralization of both economic and political authority. However, the new government’s initial action involved dismissing nine Congress-led state governments, citing their alleged loss of public trust based on performance in the 10th Lok Sabha elections. The 44th Amendment Act abolished Article 357(A), which granted the Centre the authority to deploy armed forces in grave law and order situations within states.

The Congress reclaimed power in the 1980 mid-term elections and, akin to its predecessor, dismissed the Janata Party-led governments in nine states using similar reasoning. This period witnessed the rise of regional parties forming governments in states like Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, West Bengal, etc., advocating for increased autonomy. The Akali Dal in Punjab echoed these autonomy demands. The southern states jointly declared the establishment of a regional council to reinforce their autonomy claims. These developments prompted the appointment of the Sarkaria Commission to investigate centre-state relations.

During Rajiv Gandhi’s tenure, efforts were made to form alliances with regional parties, as evidenced by agreements such as the Rajiv-Longwal pact and the Assam accord. Simultaneously, attempts at centralizing power were evident, notably through direct interactions with District Magistrates, bypassing state governments. This trend continued with initiatives like the Panchayati Raj Bill and the Jawahar Rojgar Yojana.

The fourth phase (1989-onwards)

The 1989 general election signaled a pivotal moment in Indian politics, marking the advent of a multiparty system and initiating a shift towards greater federalization. The defeat of the Congress party terminated its single-party dominance at the Centre, initiating the era of coalition governments. Regional parties assumed significance within the federal cabinet, asserting their influence assertively on the national stage. This period of heightened federalization can be categorized into two dimensions for study: Political federalization and Economic federalization.

Political Federalism

• Multiparty system from 1989 ended single-party dominance at the Centre, making coalition governments and regional parties integral to national governance.
• Regional parties like DMK and RJD wielded significant influence, compelling even the BJP to modify its agenda in coalition governance in 1999.
• Coalition governance empowered regional leaders, giving them a pivotal role in policy decisions, aligning national priorities with regional interests.
• The 1990s saw regional leaders internalizing federal norms, adopting a nuanced approach within the national framework rather than a rigid anti-Delhi stance.
• Ambitious regional leaders progressed from regional to national roles within coalitions, accommodating diverse interests and minorities.
•  The multiparty system brought institutionalized conflict resolution within a national framework, despite Congress’s decline.
• However, the federal cabinet evolved into a fragmented structure, deviating from the traditional Westminster model of collective responsibility.
•  Constituent regional parties gained cabinet representation, often controlled by regional leaders, undermining the PM’s authority in ministerial appointments and decisions.
• Instances like PM choice influenced by regional leaders, and government fate decided by their support, exemplify the pivotal role of regional parties.
• Amid declining Prime Ministerial power, the Presidential role expanded slightly, showing greater initiative in coalition scenarios, while the Rajya Sabha’s role as a Federal Second Chamber grew more pronounced, necessitating inter-house legislative collaboration for effective governance.

The issues pertaining to Centre-state relations in India

• Resource Allocation Disputes

Ongoing disputes between the Centre and states revolve around resource allocation, including funds, taxes, and other benefits. Despite streamlining revenue collection and sharing through GST implementation, concerns persist over the criteria used by the Finance Commission for revenue sharing.

• Legal Challenges to Central Laws

States like Kerala and Chhattisgarh have filed cases in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of laws like the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Investigation Agency Act (NIA Act).

• Misuse of Article 356

Article 356 has often been perceived as employed for political motives rather than due to genuine breakdowns in constitutional machinery, evident in cases like those of Arunachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand.

• Role of Governors

Tension arises from the perception that Governors, appointed by the Centre, act as representatives of the Centre, leading to concerns that the Governor’s office becomes a tool for the Centre to exert influence and reclaim power.

Measures can ensure harmonious Centre-state relations

1. Sarkaria Commission, 1983:

•    Strengthen All-India Services and expand their scope.
•    Suggests the Union focus on concurrent subjects only where uniform policy is essential, leaving the rest for state jurisdiction.

2. MM Punchhi Commission, 2007:

•     Proposes constitutional definition of local bodies’ powers for self-governance through amendments.
• Recommends fixed five-year Governor tenures, removable only via state Assembly impeachment, akin to the President’s process.

3. National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC), 2000:

•    Advocates establishing an Inter-State Trade and Commerce Commission as a legislative body under Article 307.
•  Suggests including emergency and disaster management in the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule.

Other Recommendations:

•    Strengthen Centre-state institutions like the Inter-State Council, Finance Commission, and Niti Aayog for better relations.
• Promote fiscal federalism for fair resource distribution between Centre and states.
•  Consider revisiting the seventh schedule for possible decentralization and introduction of a local government list.
• Encourage state-level innovations as crucial sources of progress and change.
• Emphasize effective power-sharing mechanisms to prevent undue concentration of authority in any single entity.

Read more