I begin this column on the unassailable premise that India is a Union of States. The States (minus Jammu & Kashmir) are listed in the First Schedule to the Constitution of India. The essence of federalism lies in the fact that the British-ruled provinces and the princely states voluntarily agreed to become a part of the Union. States were re-organised on linguistic lines because a state is not a mere administrative unit; it has a linguistic, cultural, historic and political identity.
Without doubt, federal
We can quibble about ‘how federal are we’. India is indeed federal with some provisions of the Constitution enlarging the federal character and some provisions restricting it, but there is no gainsaying that, at its inception, the Constitution of India envisaged a federal country. To reinforce my argument, I refer to Article 368(2) that requires that certain amendments to the Constitution made by Parliament are required to be ratified by one-half of the state legislatures before the Bill can become a law.
The amending power of Parliament has been the subject matter of controversy. Eventually, the Supreme Court held in Keshavananda Bharti (1973), and re-affirmed in Minerva Mills (1980), that the basic structure or features of the Constitution cannot be changed. In Keshavananda Bharti, SR Bommai and other cases the Supreme Court declared that ‘federalism’ is a basic feature of the Constitution. It was a victory for federalism.
Also Read
Cycle of dependency: The desperate yearning for more has consumed many businessmen like Naresh Goyal
How to implement AI projects in your organisation
Poor lessons: Through its dodgy accounting, Byju’s has queered the pitch for India’s start-ups
Have USD-INR premiums stopped falling? Notwithstanding the Court’s declaration of the law, the central government has found ways to whittle away at federalism. A State’s powers are executive, legislative and financial.
Let’s see how the BJP government has eroded these powers.
Executive:
Under Articles 154 and 162, the State has the executive power and it extends to all matters with respect to which the state legislature has power to make laws. Police is a state subject. The DGP (Law & Order) is appointed by the state government. However, the central government has, effectively, usurped the power by requiring the state to submit the names of eligible IPS officers to the UPSC and restricting the choice of the state to three officers shortlisted by the UPSC. By introducing NEET, the Centre has obliged the states to admit students to medical colleges (including colleges established and wholly funded by the state government) only on the basis of marks/ranks obtained by the students in the All-India examination. State governments have been denied funds to schemes partly funded by the central government on flimsy grounds such as the state’s branding of the scheme had added a prefix or a suffix or that the audit certificate of expenditure had not been submitted in time. Kerala has been denied funds because the state had not opened new schools rejecting the state’s argument that it is constrained to shut some schools because of fewer children due to the low birth rate. Such extraneous grounds are not applied to BJP-ruled states.
Legislative:
The 47 4 entries in the Concurrent List of the Constitution are fields of legislation on which both Parliament and the state Legislature may make laws. The central government has, without deferring to the state governments, passed laws on a number of subjects including civil procedure; forests; drugs; monopolies; trade unions; social security and social insurance; welfare of labour; education; legal, medical and other professions; ports; trade and commerce; price control; factories; electricity; archaeological sites; acquisition of property; stamp duties; etc. Article 254(2) enables making a state law on a concurrent list subject that will prevail over an earlier central law in that state if the state law received the assent of the President but, I doubt, if in its zeal to impose oneness in all matters, the BJP government will oblige a state government in any case. The Concurrent List has virtually become a Union List. The practice of Parliament passing laws on many concurrent list subjects, without even a nod to the states, must be deplored.
The worst example is the three criminal law Bills passed recently. While ‘criminal law’ and ‘criminal procedure’ are in the Concurrent List, the central government has rode roughshod over the state governments. There was not even a pretence of consultation after the three Bills were drafted by an ad hoc group of nominated persons. Besides, several provisions of the Bills encroach upon the subjects of ‘Public order’ and Police’ that are State List subjects.
Financial:
Nowhere is the erosion of federalism more evident than in the BJP government’s ruthless use of financial powers. It has been revealed that the Prime Minister attempted to ‘instruct’ the 14th Finance Commission to cut the proposed states’ share of tax revenues. Subsequently, the states’ share of 41% of net tax revenues has been deviously reduced to approximately 31%. Non-shareable cesses and surcharges have been imposed indiscriminately. States’ borrowings have been severely limited through questionable means. Terribly designed and badly implemented GST laws have crippled states’ finances. There is discrimination between state and state in disbursing grants-in-aid and disaster relief. Ask any non-BJP state finance minister: he/she will tell the story of being forced to beg the central government for funds (BJP state finance ministers will mutter under their breath).
What was once a whisper in the corridors of power has become a project. If the project succeeds, states will be reduced to mere administrative units and India will become a Union of Municipalities or worse.
I begin this column on the unassailable premise that India is a Union of States. The States (minus Jammu & Kashmir) are listed in the First Schedule to the Constitution of India. The essence of federalism lies in the fact that the British-ruled provinces and the princely states voluntarily agreed to become a part of the Union. States were re-organised on linguistic lines because a state is not a mere administrative unit; it has a linguistic, cultural, historic and political identity.
We can quibble about ‘how federal are we’. India is indeed federal with some provisions of the Constitution enlarging the federal character and some provisions restricting it, but there is no gainsaying that, at its inception, the Constitution of India envisaged a federal country. To reinforce my argument, I refer to Article 368(2) that requires that certain amendments to the Constitution made by Parliament are required to be ratified by one-half of the state legislatures before the Bill can become a law.
The amending power of Parliament has been the subject matter of controversy. Eventually, the Supreme Court held in Keshavananda Bharti (1973), and re-affirmed in Minerva Mills (1980), that the basic structure or features of the Constitution cannot be changed. In Keshavananda Bharti, SR Bommai and other cases the Supreme Court declared that ‘federalism’ is a basic feature of the Constitution. It was a victory for federalism.
Notwithstanding the Court’s declaration of the law, the central government has found ways to whittle away at federalism. A State’s powers are executive, legislative and financial.
Under Articles 154 and 162, the State has the executive power and it extends to all matters with respect to which the state legislature has power to make laws. Police is a state subject. The DGP (Law & Order) is appointed by the state government. However, the central government has, effectively, usurped the power by requiring the state to submit the names of eligible IPS officers to the UPSC and restricting the choice of the state to three officers shortlisted by the UPSC. By introducing NEET, the Centre has obliged the states to admit students to medical colleges (including colleges established and wholly funded by the state government) only on the basis of marks/ranks obtained by the students in the All-India examination. State governments have been denied funds to schemes partly funded by the central government on flimsy grounds such as the state’s branding of the scheme had added a prefix or a suffix or that the audit certificate of expenditure had not been submitted in time. Kerala has been denied funds because the state had not opened new schools rejecting the state’s argument that it is constrained to shut some schools because of fewer children due to the low birth rate. Such extraneous grounds are not applied to BJP-ruled states.
The 47 4 entries in the Concurrent List of the Constitution are fields of legislation on which both Parliament and the state Legislature may make laws. The central government has, without deferring to the state governments, passed laws on a number of subjects including civil procedure; forests; drugs; monopolies; trade unions; social security and social insurance; welfare of labour; education; legal, medical and other professions; ports; trade and commerce; price control; factories; electricity; archaeological sites; acquisition of property; stamp duties; etc. Article 254(2) enables making a state law on a concurrent list subject that will prevail over an earlier central law in that state if the state law received the assent of the President but, I doubt, if in its zeal to impose oneness in all matters, the BJP government will oblige a state government in any case. The Concurrent List has virtually become a Union List. The practice of Parliament passing laws on many concurrent list subjects, without even a nod to the states, must be deplored.
The worst example is the three criminal law Bills passed recently. While ‘criminal law’ and ‘criminal procedure’ are in the Concurrent List, the central government has rode roughshod over the state governments. There was not even a pretence of consultation after the three Bills were drafted by an ad hoc group of nominated persons. Besides, several provisions of the Bills encroach upon the subjects of ‘Public order’ and Police’ that are State List subjects.
Nowhere is the erosion of federalism more evident than in the BJP government’s ruthless use of financial powers. It has been revealed that the Prime Minister attempted to ‘instruct’ the 14th Finance Commission to cut the proposed states’ share of tax revenues. Subsequently, the states’ share of 41% of net tax revenues has been deviously reduced to approximately 31%. Non-shareable cesses and surcharges have been imposed indiscriminately. States’ borrowings have been severely limited through questionable means. Terribly designed and badly implemented GST laws have crippled states’ finances. There is discrimination between state and state in disbursing grants-in-aid and disaster relief. Ask any non-BJP state finance minister: he/she will tell the story of being forced to beg the central government for funds (BJP state finance ministers will mutter under their breath).
What was once a whisper in the corridors of power has become a project. If the project succeeds, states will be reduced to mere administrative units and India will become a Union of Municipalities or worse.
Get live Share Market updates, Stock Market Quotes, and the latest India News and business news on Financial Express. Download the Financial Express App for the latest finance news.
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Mort Laitner
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
visit website
