Centre-State administrative relations are a matter of debate as constitutional provisions created a strong Centre. Discuss.

The Indian Constitution, adopted in 1950, deliberately incorporated provisions that lean towards a strong Centre, a design influenced by the partition of the country and the need for national integration and stability. This centralizing tendency in administrative relations has been a recurring theme in India's federal discourse.

Constitutional Provisions Establishing a Strong Centre

Several articles in the Indian Constitution empower the Union government with significant administrative control over the states:

• Article 256: Obligation of States and the Union: This article mandates that the executive power of every State shall be so exercised as to ensure compliance with the laws made by Parliament and any existing laws which apply in that State. Furthermore, the executive power of the Union extends to giving such directions to a State as may appear to the Government of India to be necessary for that purpose.
• Article 257: Control of the Union over States in Certain Cases: This article states that the executive power of every State shall be so exercised as not to impede or prejudice the exercise of the executive power of the Union, and the executive power of the Union shall extend to the giving of directions to a State for that purpose. It also covers the construction and maintenance of means of communication of national or military importance.
• Article 355: Duty of the Union to Protect States against External Aggression and Internal Disturbance: This article places a duty on the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution. This often provides a basis for central intervention.
• Article 356: President's Rule: Commonly known as President's Rule, this article allows the President to assume all or any of the functions of the State Government if he is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of a State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. This is the most potent instrument of central control.
• All India Services (Article 312): Officers of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), Indian Police Service (IPS), and Indian Forest Service (IFoS) are recruited and controlled by the Centre but serve in states. This dual control often creates a situation where state governments perceive these officers as being more loyal to the Centre, especially during conflicts of interest.
• Grants-in-Aid (Article 275 and 282): The Centre provides financial assistance to states through grants, often with conditions attached, thereby influencing state policies and administrative decisions.
• Inter-State Council (Article 263): While intended to promote coordination, the council's recommendations are not binding, and its effectiveness depends on the Centre's willingness to implement them.

Operational Dynamics and Debates

The constitutional provisions, while designed for national unity, have often led to friction between the Centre and states:

• Use and Misuse of Article 356: Historically, Article 356 has been invoked numerous times, often controversially, to dismiss state governments controlled by opposition parties. The Sarkaria Commission (1983) and the Punchhi Commission (2007) made recommendations to curb its misuse, and the Supreme Court's verdict in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) significantly restricted its arbitrary application by making judicial review mandatory.
• Role of the Governor: The Governor, appointed by the President (Centre), acts as a vital link between the Union and states. However, their role has often been criticized for acting as an agent of the Centre rather than a neutral constitutional head, especially in matters of legislative assent, summoning/proroguing assemblies, and recommending President's Rule.
• Central Schemes and Conditionalities: The Centre often launches schemes that are implemented by states (e.g., Ayushman Bharat, MGNREGA). While beneficial, these schemes often come with specific guidelines and financial conditionalities, limiting the states' autonomy in policy formulation and resource allocation, and sometimes leading to unfunded mandates.
• Financial Dependency: States' heavy reliance on central grants and shared taxes, despite the recommendations of the Finance Commission, often translates into administrative subservience. The Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, while a significant reform, has centralized indirect tax administration and reduced fiscal autonomy for states.
• Disaster Management: In times of natural calamities, the Centre often takes a leading role in coordination and resource allocation, which can sometimes lead to debates over the extent of central intervention versus state autonomy in relief and rehabilitation efforts.

Committees and Recommendations on Centre-State Relations

Over the years, various commissions have examined Centre-State relations and suggested reforms to strengthen cooperative federalism:

Commission/Committee	Year	Key Recommendations (Administrative)
Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC)	1966-69	Recommended the establishment of an Inter-State Council, greater delegation of powers to states, and rationalization of the role of the Governor.
Sarkaria Commission	1983-88	Emphasized limiting the use of Article 356, suggested consultation with the Chief Minister before appointing the Governor, and stressed the need for strengthening the Inter-State Council. Advocated for a greater role for states in centrally sponsored schemes.
National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC)	2000-02	Recommended that Article 356 should only be used in extreme cases, proposed strengthening the Inter-State Council, and suggested reforms for the appointment and tenure of Governors.
Punchhi Commission	2007-10	Recommended that Article 356 should be amended to protect the interests of states and proposed the Governor's removal only through impeachment by the state legislature. Advocated for more clarity on concurrent list subjects and local self-government.

Recent Developments and Cooperative Federalism

In recent years, there has been an increased emphasis on cooperative federalism, yet challenges persist:

• NITI Aayog: Replaced the Planning Commission in 2015, NITI Aayog aims to foster cooperative federalism by involving states in policy-making through its Governing Council, which includes Chief Ministers.
• GST Council: This constitutional body (Article 279A) is a unique example of cooperative federalism, bringing together the Union Finance Minister and state finance ministers to make decisions on indirect taxation. However, issues of compensation and revenue sharing have sometimes led to contentious debates.
• COVID-19 Pandemic Management: The pandemic highlighted both the strengths and weaknesses of Centre-State coordination. While initial phases saw centralized decision-making, subsequent waves witnessed greater collaboration and delegation of responsibilities to states.