"If We Are To Make Real Progress On Centre-State Cooperation Politics Must Not Eclipse With Other Factors"

Despite India being a functional democracy for over seven decades, the interplay of power dynamics among the pillars of governance cannot be detached from the influence of the ruling parties. A detached analysis focused solely on institutional requirements and performance falls short of capturing the complete reality. The ambition to forge a robust India hinge on the balanced development of all its states.

This framework is particularly crucial in a diverse nation like India, where people from various backgrounds and cultures coexist. Though, the widening gap in the development of different states and counties raises critical questions about our cooperative federalism, which has been in place for the past seventy years. Federalism, at its core, entails a division of legislative and executive powers between the central and regional governments, enabling each to operate autonomously within its domain.

Adding complexity to the federalism discourse is the intriguing notion of "uncooperative federalism" introduced by the Supreme Court in a recent landmark judgment of Union of India and Anr versus M/s Mohit Minerals. The court determined that the recommendations of the GST Council are not binding on the Centre and the States. This judgment throws into sharp relief the ongoing tensions and recalibrations within India's federal structure.

In recent years, the central government has routinely unveiled state rankings based on a myriad of socio-economic indicators. However, this exercise has yet to translate into targeted aid for those languishing at the bottom of these lists. Factually, India's formation is rooted in a multifaceted tapestry of anti-feudal and anti-colonial struggles, with the rallying cries of political unification and national cohesion. The merger of princely states and tribal territories into a singular political entity under the aegis of democratic and constitutional governance has exploded fresh hopes among the populace. Yet, years after the institution of modern states, many elementary needs remain unfulfilled.

To Access to basics such as food, health, shelter, and education continues to be a struggle for a substantial portion of the population. National development and economic evolution should ideally be inclusive, encompassing all citizens. The practice of federalism, which facilitates the decentralization of power while maintaining national unity, is adopted by many large and developed nations, including the USA, Russia, and Brazil. As democracy progresses towards empowering people further, India, as an emerging economic powerhouse and the world's largest democracy, must look to the best federalist practices worldwide.

It has been observed that the national political leadership of the Center primarily emerges from the larger states, which boast of thriving industries, bustling urban centers, and a larger parliamentary representation. This dynamic often results in the smaller states, which wield less political clout, being sidelined in the decision-making corridors of the Center, especially when it comes to the allocation of financial resources. Allegations abound that central institutions and authorities are being weaponized against states that differ politically or fail to align with the ruling national parties.

Given India's vast diversity and uneven development, it is imperative that states have the autonomy to govern their economic affairs, particularly concerning the utilization and management of their resources. States endowed with natural resources should have the authority to make decisions on the optimal use of these assets. They must also have the power to engage in business negotiations with global stakeholders, both domestic and international, including the imposition of taxes and royalties.

In an ideal vision of cooperative federalism, it's suggested that the states wield greater authority. Decision-making shouldn't be centralized solely in Delhi or state capitals; instead, it should be decentralized, empowering regions far and wide. Particularly in domains like human development, food security, social security, essential amenities, education, health, agriculture, industry, communication, connectivity, and local governance, states and local bodies should enjoy unfettered autonomy. States should possess the power to collect all forms of revenue from within their territories, contributing a modest portion to the Center for its functions.

The outlines of federalism in India have been continually shifting. Historically, the federal principle remained largely dormant until 1967. The imposition of the internal emergency by Indira Gandhi, and the subsequent elections, marked a turning point. The Congress's defeat and the rise of the Janata Party heralded a new era where the significance of federalism was acknowledged even by Congress ministers. Although Congress regained power in 1980, its dominance waned, paving the way for a multiparty system and coalition governments post the 1989 parliamentary elections, fostering a new era of federal power-sharing.

The past illustrates that in our federal framework, a Prime Minister with a national stature wields more influence than a regional figure. Aside the BJP securing clear majorities in 2014 and 2019, it continues to operate within a coalition government where regional parties play a substantial role, often prompting central decisions based on regional priorities. However, in states where other parties govern, a lack of coordination between state and central governments can impede developmental efforts, underscoring the complexities and challenges of federalism in India.

An independent judiciary opinion as a cornerstone of federalism, vested with the power to interpret the Constitution when any government exceeds its constitutional bounds. The Supreme Court, through numerous landmark cases, has shaped the contours of Indian federalism, albeit with an uneven trajectory.

In the seminal 1962 case of Automobile Transport v. State of Rajasthan, the Court highlighted the importance of the federal structure, reflecting the distribution of powers laid out in the Seventh Schedule's three legislative lists. The interpretation of Article 301 in this case reinforced federalism as a fundamental constitutional theory.Though, the Court's deportment on federalism has not always been consistent.

In the State of West Bengal v. Union of India, the majority judgment adopted a less favorable view by not distinguishing the Indian Constitution as fundamentally federal. This inconsistency was addressed in the Kesavananda Bharati judgment of 1973, where federalism was reiterated as a basic feature of the Constitution. Yet, the provision of powers between the Union and the states has sparked debates, with certain judgments perceived as skewed towards the central government.

For this in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, the Court highlighted the joint accountability of both central and state governments in tackling pollution to protect public health. The milestone S.R. Bommai v. Union of India case, decided by a nine-judge bench, articulated a clear federalist doctrine, acknowledging the supremacy of the states within their respective domains.

The Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India case, directing on the 2003 amendment to the Representation of the People Act, further cemented India's federal status. Federalism faced another test in 2010 when the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) jurisdiction was challenged. The argument cantered on whether the CBI, as a central agency, could investigate without state consent, despite a High Court directive. This incident emphasized the ongoing tensions and the critical role of the judiciary in navigating the delicate balance of power in India's federal framework.

The landmark decision in Govt. (NCT of Delhi) v. Union of India further underscores this necessity. In its another judgement, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court mandated that the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi essential act in accordance with the assistance of the Delhi Government's Council of Ministers on all matters, except those involving land, police, and public order. This presiding is crucial for defining the limits of power-sharing, highlighting the imperative for seamless cooperation and synergy between the central and state governments.

In my view, the common people should not suffer due to struggles between the Centre and the states, as such discord erodes the essence of federalism and the vision of a united, thriving nation. For the ideals articulated in the preamble of the Constitution to be genuinely realized, a collaborative spirit is indispensable.

While federal supremacy is a defining feature of India's constitutional framework, it is crucial to acknowledge the autonomy of the states within their respective domains. This delicate equilibrium necessitates the practice of cooperative federalism and requires the Union to respect the boundaries of its jurisdiction. The establishment of NITI Aayog marks a significant stride towards achieving this goal of cooperative federalism, fostering an environment of effective governance across the nation.

Functioning on the principle that strong states form the bedrock of a robust nation, NITI Aayog serves as a indispensable platform, uniting states under the banner of 'Team India.' This collaboration aims to propel the national development agenda forward, ensuring that the diverse aspirations and unique strengths of each state contribute to the overarching vision of progress and prosperity for all.

The Indian Constitution encapsulates all the hallmarks of a federal system, delineating the autonomy of the Centre and the states to legislate within their constitutionally designated realms. Yet, in certain scenarios, the Centre's supremacy is enshrined within the constitutional framework itself. Ought either the Centre or the states overstep their boundaries, the independent judiciary stands as the pivotal intermediary, with the Supreme Court revered as the protector and guarantor of the Constitution. Since the Constitution's inception, the federal fabric of India has evolved, particularly as the political landscape transitioned from the hegemony of a single party to the complexities of coalition governance.

The ascent of regional parties and the tenuous nature of coalition governments have necessitated a more adaptable and conciliatory federation, especially in financial matters. The introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) exemplifies this evolution, granting states the authority to levy taxes, thereby reinforcing their fiscal autonomy—a monumental shift in India's fiscal history. Ideally, the Centre and the state governments should engage in harmonious collaboration and coordination, eschewing conflicts to bolster a unified, progressive nation.

In a topical ruling on the NCT of Delhi case, the Supreme Court underscored the vital importance of collaborative federalism. It highlighted the necessity for both the Centre and state governments to demonstrate a willingness to pursue shared objectives, fostering an environment of harmonious coexistence and mutual dependence despite their inherent differences. When conflicts arise between these two levels of government, it is ultimately the people who bear the brunt. Both governments, operating over the same populace and territory, must navigate modern challenges with a spirit of cooperation and mutual understanding.

The efficacy of policies and programs hinges on the synchronized efforts of both the Centre and the states in working towards the constitutional mandate. In today's complex landscape, adhering to the tenets of cooperative federalism is not just desirable but imperative, ensuring that the goals of governance are achieved through unity and collective endeavour. Elected governments operate at three distinct levels, each accountable to its respective electorate and constitutionally bound to advance public welfare.

In light of transformative forces such as globalization, technological progress, and shifts in economic policy, it is imperative for the Union and state governments to engage in robust cooperation and collaboration, extending their efforts to include local bodies in addressing the shared needs of the populace. States should be empowered to exercise their constitutional rights fully, with the Union stepping in only under exceptional circumstances where states face challenges beyond their capacity, necessitating a national intervention for the greater collective benefit.

This framework ensures that each level of government contributes effectively to the holistic well-being of the nation, while maintaining the integrity and autonomy of the states. Subject areas such as defense, communication, and foreign policy, as highlighted by the Sarkaria and Punchi Commissions, exemplify domains where the Union government retains significant authority.

However, in matters related to the State List, the Union must engage in mandatory consultation with state authorities prior to taking any action. This ensures that states are integral participants in decision-making processes that impact their jurisdiction. To enhance policy coordination and implementation, the efficient utilization of Inter-State Councils and Zonal Councils is advocated.

These bodies should be employed to address disputes and provide advisory support on matters of mutual concern. Furthermore, contentious issues that have the potential to spark conflicts, such as land management, labour, and natural resources, should be entrusted to individual states. This approach would facilitate greater investment inflows and financial movement, thereby empowering states to leverage their unique assets and opportunities more effectively.

Enhancing the participation of states in the operations of research bodies such as NITI Aayog and increasing fund allocations to the states through the recommendations of the Fifteenth Finance Commission are crucial measures. Encouraging healthy competition among the states and involving them in matters related to international treaties and obligations can foster practical decision-making.

The shift from cooperative to coercive federalism can be attributed to various factors, such as ideological differences, the presence of the Union government's machinery within a state, the strategic positioning of states like West Bengal and the Northeast, and the cultural and social development status of a region. As these issues escalate, the Centre often steps in, which may provide short-term benefits but could deteriorate Centre-State relations in the long run. Thus, a proper renegotiation of federal dynamics is necessary to ensure the integrity of cooperative federalism remains intact.

"Advisible Mechanism Should Not Endup With Monarchism"

Views are personal

Written By: PVS Sailaja - Assistant Professor, Dr.Br Ambedkar Law College, Hyderabad