With Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin setting up a high-level committee on safeguarding the rights of states and improving Centre-state relations, the question of federalism that the DMK, Tamil Nadu’s ruling party, has been pushing to the centre of national politics is back in the news. “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States,” says Article 1 of the Constitution. However, the Constitution makes the polity quasi-federal, wherein legislative powers are divided into the Union List, the State List and the Concurrent List, with executive powers coextensive with legislative powers. However, the Centre has been offered more powers to preserve territorial unity. All residuary powers — on any subject not falling under any of the three lists — are with the Centre, and a Central law prevails when there is a clash with a state law on matters in the Concurrent List. Parliament can also alter the boundaries of any state with just a simple majority, and the office of the Governor also enhances the power of the Centre vis-à-vis the states. Given the diversity in the country and the formation of linguistic states, the tilt in the Constitution in favour of the Centre has often brought federal concerns to the fore, with states over the decades accusing the Centre of bias, particularly when Article 356 has been used to dismiss elected state governments and impose President’s Rule. The problems became more acute with the rise of the regional parties, when the Central and state governments were being run by different, and often antagonistic, parties. This tension between the powers of the Union and the autonomy of state governments within their domain has been addressed by commissions that have given their recommendations. However, many of their recommendations remain just that. Rajamannar Committee In 1969, then Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C N Annadurai established the Centre-State Relations Inquiry Committee under the leadership of P V Rajamannar, former Chief Justice of the Madras High Court. The three-member committee was asked to study the Constitution and recommend steps to ensure the “utmost autonomy of the state in the executive, legislative and judicial branches … without prejudice to the integrity of the country as a whole”. Its conclusions were clear and scathing. “There has been a growing realisation of the strong domination of the Centre … and the tendency on the part of the Centre to exercise control over the States, drastically affecting the autonomy of the states,” the committee wrote, lamenting how state-specific matters were increasingly under central command simply because both Centre and states were run by the same party at the time. The committee recommended the repeal of Article 356, which allows the Centre to impose President’s Rule in a state, and the formation of a strong Inter-State Council under Article 263 to resolve differences in a spirit of dialogue. The Committee also criticised institutions that emerged outside the Constitution, chief among them the Planning Commission that was created by an executive order of the Centre. “The Centre has got a whip in its hands… because the grants are given by the Centre at its discretion… the Plan allocation is left entirely to the whims and fancies of those who call themselves Members of the Planning Body,” the committee said. This, it said, made the Finance Commission, which has a constitutional mandate, irrelevant. Worse, it had rendered states “suppliants for aid” in their own jurisdictions The report also stated that recruitment to all-India services such as IAS and IPS should be either by transfer of members of the existing gazetted services under the control of the states, or by direct recruitment. On the Governor, it said the Constitution should have a new clause inserted, enabling the President to issue “Instruments of Instructions” to Governors. These would lay down guidelines, indicating the matters where the Governor should consult the Central Government and where the Central Government could issue directions to him. Sarkaria Commission The Sarkaria Commission was set up in 1983 to review the evolution of Centre-state relations, to identify persistent problems and seek solutions, for, as per the Commission’s report, “stresses, strains and irritations… may stifle the working of the system and endanger the unity and integrity of the country”. The three-member Commission was headed by retired Supreme Court judge Justice Ranjit Singh Sarkaria. The need for such a Commission was felt in the wake of the rise of regional parties from the 1960s onwards that often clashed with the Congress-ruled Centre. The Congress had increasingly ceased to be the party in power in many states. The Sarkaria Commission recommended a balance of power between the Centre and the states, also criticised the arbitrary use of Article 356, advocated greater decentralisation, recommended that apolitical people of eminence be appointed Governors after consultation with the Chief Ministers of the concerned states, and called for the activation of the Inter-State Council to resolve federal tensions. Punchhi Commission In 2007, the UPA government constituted the Punchhi Commission to “look into the new issues of Centre-state relations, keeping in view the changes that have taken place in the polity and economy of India since the Sarkaria Commission had last looked at the issue of Centre-state relations over two decades ago”. The five-member commission was headed by former Chief Justice of India Madan Mohan Punchhi. It looked into federal issues, but introduced a new concern: the role of Central forces in cases of caste or communal violence in a state. Politically, this was also the UPA’s response to BJP-ruled states and “possible” violence there. The commission recommended that, in the context of communal violence, Central forces should be deployed in states without prior consent. It also recommended the Finance Commission division in the Ministry of Finance to be upgraded to a permanent department. The Punchhi panel recommended that Governors should be distinguished individuals, preferably from outside the state, and should ideally not have deep involvement in politics, particularly recently. It called for a fixed tenure of five years for a Governor and a process for removal rather than the removal being at the Centre’s discretion. It recommended a period of a maximum of six months for a Governor to decide to either assent to a Bill or reserve it for the consideration of the President. It also asserted that the President must convey to the state within six months the decision on a Bill reserved for his or her consideration. The Punchhi Commission recommended that Article 263 be amended to enhance the authority of the Inter-State Council. In recent months, some of these concerns have emerged again, particularly after the Supreme Court this month ruled the prolonged delay in the Tamil Nadu governor R N Ravi’s giving his assent to Bills passed by the state Assembly as erroneous in law.
