In this “President’s Blog,” the focus is on the complex relationship between central and state governments in India. The article covers topics from the recent debates on federalism highlighted in the 2024 election manifestos of parties, to concerns raised at the Jantar Mantar protests about fiscal autonomy and centralized powers. It also reviews how changes in laws over the years have affected the power dynamics between the central and state governments and further marginalisation of people in the political sphere. This blog offers a straightforward examination of the challenges and considerations in Indian federalism, essential for anyone interested in a people-centred political process.

Centre-state relations and federalim have become hotly debated topics in recent times. Several parties such as the Congress, DMK and CPI(M) have put forward their views on these topics in their 2024 election manifestos. Earlier, during the protest meeting on 7-8 February at Jantar Mantar, state governments brought attention to key issues in Centre-state relations. They expressed concerns about fiscal autonomy, the centralization of powers, fair resource allocation, governance roles, legislative authority, and the importance of upholding federal principles. The protest aimed to highlight the need for equitable representation, and respect for state autonomy within the Indian Union.

Centre-state relations in India have been a longstanding and contentious issue that has evolved over the seven decades since independence. The Constituent Assembly, recognizing the country’s diversity, vast geography and the aspirations of nations and peoples, opted for a federal system that aimed to ‘strike a balance between centralized authority and state autonomy’. However, in practice, there have been ongoing debates and criticisms regarding the concentration of power at the Centre and the erosion of states’ authority.

Division of powers between Centre and States in the Constitution

The Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution delineates the distribution of powers between the Centre and the states. It consists of three lists: the Union List, the State List, and the Concurrent List. The Union List includes subjects exclusively under the jurisdiction of the central government, such as defense, foreign affairs, and banking. The State List enumerates matters solely within the domain of the states, including police, public health, and local government. The Concurrent List comprises subjects where both the Centre and states can legislate, such as education, criminal law, and forests. This division of powers aims to maintain a balance between central authority and state autonomy, ensuring that each level of government has the sovereignty to govern specific areas while also cooperating on matters of mutual interest.

Dilution of the powers of States

Over a period of time the powers of the states have been diluted. The 42nd Amendment to the Constitution altered state autonomy in areas such as armed forces deployment and forest management. The Centre’s increased intervention can be seen in various recent policies like the National Education Policy, GST, and Farming Laws, which encroach on traditionally state-controlled domains. Instances like vaccine distribution during COVID-19 further highlight this imbalance, with Justice D.Y. Chandrachud pointing out the Centre’s responsibility to involve the states in such matters. It is said that the Indian Constitution describes the Indian state as a ‘quasi-federal system’, with in-built provisions to convert the Indian state into a unitary state if the powers that be wish so. The concentration of power at the Centre risks disempowering states, impacting areas like education and healthcare decision-making, as seen in the NEET controversy in Tamil Nadu.

Over the years, there has been a perception of a gradual encroachment or dilution of states’ powers in certain areas as outlined in the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution. Some key areas where states have experienced a reduction in authority or where there have been disputes regarding the distribution of powers include:

  1. Finance: The power to levy and collect taxes has seen a trend towards centralization, with the Union government introducing various cess and surcharges that bypass state governments. Additionally, the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) and the subsequent changes in tax collection mechanisms have altered the financial autonomy of states.
  2. Social Welfare Schemes: Central government-sponsored schemes in areas like health, education, and rural development have often come with conditionalities, leading to concerns about states having limited discretion in implementing policies according to their specific needs.
  3. Security and Law Enforcement: With the growing role of central agencies like the CBI and NIA in handling cases that were traditionally under state jurisdiction, there have been debates about the encroachment of the Centre into areas such as law and order.
  4. Infrastructure Development: While infrastructure falls under the purview of states, the Centre’s major infrastructure projects like national highways and railways can sometimes sideline state authority in planning and decision-making.
  5. Environmental Regulations: Policies related to environmental protection and natural resource management, often governed by central legislation like the Environment Protection Act, can limit states’ flexibility to regulate activities within their borders.
  6. Education and Healthcare: While states have the mandate on these subjects, central schemes like the Right to Education Act and National Health Mission have set national standards that states need to adhere to, potentially constraining their autonomy.
  7. Disaster Management: The introduction of the Disaster Management Act in 2005 has given significant powers to the Centre in coordinating disaster response and relief efforts, potentially overshadowing states’ roles in handling emergencies.

Recommendations of Commissions

Over the years, several Commissions have been established to study and provide recommendations on Centre-state relations. The Balwant Rai Mehta Committee Report in 1957 advocated for decentralization and the empowerment of local self-government bodies to ‘strengthen governance at the grassroots level’. The Sarkaria Commission Report in 1983 focused on the roles and responsibilities of the Centre and states, emphasizing ‘cooperative federalism’ and offering guidelines for resolving disputes.

In addition to these reports, the Rajamannar Committee Report also holds significance in the discourse on Centre-state relations. The report, submitted in 1969, highlighted the importance of ensuring a harmonious relationship between the Centre and states, recommending measures to promote better coordination and cooperation.

Role of Governors

The role of governors in various Indian states has come under scrutiny due to allegations of overstepping constitutional boundaries and partisan politics. In 2016, Arunachal Pradesh’s Governor J.P. Rajkhowa was criticized for allegedly colluding with the central government, leading to the imposition of President’s Rule. In 2019, Karnataka’s political instability was exacerbated when the Governor invited the BJP to form the government amidst accusations of bias. Similarly, in 2018, the relationship between the West Bengal government and Governor Keshari Nath Tripathi was strained due to concerns of partisan interference. In Kerala (2019), Governor Arif Mohammed Khan was accused of managing legislative matters related to the Citizenship Amendment Act without proper counsel, challenging constitutional norms. Also, in Tamil Nadu, Governor Banwarilal Purohit faced backlash for returning a bill on university admissions, highlighting the ongoing tension between state governments and gubernatorial authorities. Postgraduate Courses in Medicine and Dentistry Bill, 2021, for reassessment sparked debate.

Central government institutions

Instances featuring institutions like the CBI, NIA, ED, Income Tax, and ECI overstepping their mandates and potentially threatening ruling parties in states have raised concerns about federal principles. Recent events involving ED and Income Tax raids and arrests, notably targeting Chief Ministers, point to potential misuse of power and political interference.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Income Tax Department have faced scrutiny for their actions in targeting opposition leaders and critical voices, notably through raids on premises linked to prominent political figures, including Chief Ministers. These incidents, often timed around key political events, have sparked allegations of biased targeting and partisan agendas, casting doubts on the agencies’ ‘neutrality and independence’.

Tax raids and subsequent legal procedures have raised flags about utilizing tax scrutiny as a means to limit opposition voices.

Article 356

Many state governments and regional parties in India insist on removing Article 356 due to concerns about its potential misuse for political gains of the ruling party at the centre. Instances like the Uttarakhand and Arunachal Pradesh crises highlight controversies surrounding the imposition of President’s Rule under this Article. President’s Rule has been imposed 134 times since 1950 often driven by narrow political interests.

The use of Article 356 has sparked controversy in recent times, particularly evident in the cases of Uttarakhand and Arunachal Pradesh in 2016. In Uttarakhand, the central government’s imposition of President’s Rule led to a significant legal and political confrontation, with the state government, then led by the Congress party, contesting the decision in court as a politically motivated abuse of power. Similarly, in Arunachal Pradesh, the political upheaval also resulted in the application of President’s Rule, a decision which was ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court.

Recently the Supreme Court had criticised the Tamilnadu governor who had refused to accept the recommendation of the state chief minister to appoint K Ponmudy as a minister after he was reinstated as an MLA.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the increasing centralization of economic, financial, and legal authorities within the central government have fostered authoritarian tendencies, thereby eroding national unity and escalating the risk of foreign interference. This shift not only undermines the role of individuals in making critical decisions concerning their own lives but also raises concerns about the extent of corporate influence on decision-making processes at the national level. Furthermore, when the powers of state legislatures are diminished, it affects not just regional businesses but also endangers the welfare and interests of the state’s residents.

The root of discord between the center and the states often lies in the narrow interests of the ruling elite, who manipulate existing contradictions for their personal gain. Political parties driven by vested interests exacerbate this situation by stoking passions. However, granting a decisive role in decision-making to the people at both the state and central levels could align these conflicting interests. Currently, the system sidelines people from participating in the decision-making process. Instituting a political process that is centered around the populace has the potential to harmonize these interests effectively.

The argument for granting enhanced powers to state governments is supported by the belief that they can respond more adeptly and promptly to the needs of the populace than the central government. The proximity and accessibility of state legislators to their constituents, compared to national representatives, are often cited as reasons for this belief. Nevertheless, such a devolution of powers must be supported by strong mechanisms that ensure accountability from elected representatives. This includes implementing the right to recall representatives, empowering constituents in the selection of candidates over political parties, and facilitating the initiation of legislation. Without these significant reforms in the electoral and political frameworks, simply transferring more authority to states might not achieve the desired improvements in governance and public life.

President’s Blog

 

 

By admin