Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Indian Constitution, a product of the Constituent Assembly, meticulously defined the distribution of legislative, executive, and judicial powers between the Union and the States. This division, enshrined in Articles 245-267, aims for a balance between national unity and regional autonomy. However, the assertion that there's an "obvious slant in favour of the Centre" in this distribution has been a recurring theme in Indian polity debates. Recent instances of financial strain on states and legislative interventions by the Centre have reignited this discussion, prompting a critical evaluation of the constitutional framework.
Understanding the Distribution of Powers
The Constitution categorizes legislative powers into three lists: the Union List (exclusive to the Centre), the State List (exclusive to states), and the Concurrent List (where both Centre and States can legislate, with the Centre’s law prevailing in case of conflict). Article 244 deals with powers of the Parliament to make laws for Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes. Article 356 (President’s Rule) provides for the imposition of central rule in states facing constitutional breakdown.
Arguments Supporting the ‘Slant’ in Favor of the Centre
- Dominance of the Union List: The Union List contains subjects of national importance like defense, foreign affairs, currency, and communication, granting the Centre significant control.
- Financial Power: The Centre controls most of the tax revenue (through income tax, corporation tax, and customs duties), while states are largely dependent on their share of central taxes (around 42% as per the Finance Commission recommendations). This creates a financial imbalance.
- Emergency Provisions (Article 356): The power to impose President's Rule, while intended for extraordinary circumstances, has been criticized for being used to influence state governments.
- Legislative Intervention in Concurrent List: While both Centre and States can legislate on subjects in the Concurrent List, the Centre's law generally prevails, potentially overriding state-level policies. For instance, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) subsumed state-level sales tax, reducing state autonomy.
- All-India Services: The All-India Services (IAS, IPS, IFS) are recruited and controlled by the Centre, impacting state administrative autonomy.
Counterarguments and the State Perspective
While the argument for a Centre-leaning bias holds merit, it’s important to consider the state’s perspective:
- National Unity and Security: The concentration of certain powers at the Centre is crucial for maintaining national unity, integrity, and security.
- Resource Mobilization: The Centre's role in resource mobilization ensures equitable distribution of funds across the country, particularly to less developed states.
- Inter-State Coordination: The Centre facilitates coordination between states on issues like water sharing and infrastructure development.
- Constitutional Amendments: The process of Constitutional Amendment requires ratification by a majority of State legislatures, demonstrating a degree of state involvement in the process.
Evolution of Centre-State Relations
Historically, Centre-State relations have been marked by periods of cooperation and conflict. The Sarkaria Commission (1988) and the Punchhi Commission (2007) were constituted to examine these relations and recommend improvements. The Punchhi Commission, for instance, suggested greater devolution of powers and resources to states, and a more flexible approach to the use of Article 356.
| List | Subjects | Legislative Power |
|---|---|---|
| Union List | Defense, Foreign Affairs, Currency | Exclusive to the Centre |
| State List | Public Order, Police, Local Government | Exclusive to States |
| Concurrent List | Criminal Law, Marriage & Divorce, Education | Both Centre and States; Centre’s law prevails |
Case Study: GST Implementation
The implementation of GST exemplifies the complexities of Centre-State relations. While intended to create a unified national market, the transition has been challenging for states, leading to concerns about revenue loss and reduced autonomy in tax policy. The initial teething problems and subsequent debates highlighted the need for greater consultation and flexibility in implementing nationally mandated policies.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while the distribution of powers undeniably leans towards the Centre, particularly in terms of financial control and legislative dominance, it is not entirely without consideration for state autonomy. The constitutional framework strives for a balance, but evolving socio-economic realities and political dynamics necessitate continuous review and refinement of Centre-State relations. Greater fiscal autonomy for states, increased consultation in policy-making, and a more judicious use of emergency provisions are crucial for strengthening India’s federal structure and ensuring equitable development.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.