Sarkaria Commission

0
6

The committee on Centre-State Relations, often known as the Sarkaria Commission, was an important constitutional committee in India entrusted with investigating and recommending changes to the relationship between the national government and the state governments. It was founded in 1983 and given the name Ranjit Singh Sarkaria in honor of its chairman. The federal system of India was significantly shaped by this commission, which also addressed significant problems with federalism, center-state relations, and intergovernmental cooperation. We shall examine the background, purpose, major recommendations, and significance of the Sarkaria Commission in this exhaustive study.

Historical Context

It is crucial to recognize the historical setting in which the Sarkaria Commission was created in order to comprehend its relevance. Following its independence in 1947, India enacted a federal structure of administration. The 1950 Indian Constitution established a separation of power between the national government and the state governments. But as time went on, several issues and disagreements arose regarding the application and interpretation of these clauses. These difficulties included problems with the allocation of resources, authority, and duties, which frequently resulted in confrontations and tensions between the federal government and the states.

In light of these difficulties, it was clear that center-state relations needed to be thoroughly reviewed. The seriousness of this issue was increased by a number of significant occurrences in the 1970s and early 1980s, including the reorganization of states, the emergence of regional political parties, and state demands for greater autonomy. The Sarkaria Commission was created in light of this situation.

Mandate of Sarkaria Commission

  • On June 23, 1983, the Indian government established the Sarkaria Commission with the explicit purpose of investigating and recommending changes to different center-state relations-related issues. Its main goals were, among others:
  • An examination of how the current agreements between the center and states in the Indian federal system function.
  • Analyzing the division of duties and responsibilities between the federal government and the states, especially in those regions where disagreements and conflicts had developed.
  • Evaluation of the Governor’s position inside the state and their interaction with the state governments.
  • Evaluation of the President’s power to impose President’s Rule in states under Article 356 of the Constitution.
  • Recommendations for strengthening cooperative federalism and intergovernmental interactions.

Important Advice from the Sarkaria Commission

The Sarkaria Commission issued a number of key suggestions throughout its deliberations and investigations, and these recommendations had a considerable impact on center-state relations in India. Several of the most important suggestions are:

  1. Distribution of Powers: The Commission suggested a clear separation of powers and responsibilities between the federal government and the states, highlighting the need for a consistent interpretation of the Constitution‘s current clauses to prevent disagreements. In order to maintain effective governance, it argued that the lists of authorities (the Union List, State List, and Concurrent List) should be interpreted with some wiggle room.
  2. Article 356: The Commission put forward stringent rules for the application of Article 356, which gives the center the authority to dissolve state governments and impose President’s Rule. According to its recommendations, President’s Rule should only be implemented in the event of a constitutional crisis, never for political gain, and only as a very last alternative after all other measures have failed.
  3. Governor’s Role: The Commission underscored the Governor’s role as the constitutional head of state and stressed the need for appointing nonpartisan and unbiased governors. It was advised against immediately ousting governors when a new administration took power at the center.
  4. Interstate Council: The Commission suggested bolstering the Interstate Council, a constitutional entity designed for coordination and cooperation, in order to promote more cooperation between the center and states. It was recommended that the Council’s meetings be held on a regular basis and that the Prime Minister serve as its chair.
  5. Finance Commission: The Commission proposed that the Finance Commission, which is responsible for allocating financial resources between the federal government and the states, be replaced every five years in accordance with the Constitution. Additionally, it recommended that the Finance Commission’s terms of reference be expanded.
  6. National Development Council (NDC): The Commission proposed that the National Development Council (NDC), which is in charge of planning and development, be reorganized to include the Chief Ministers of all states, making it a more inclusive and representative council.

Effect and Application

  1. Positive Impact: The Sarkaria Commission’s recommendations were vast and thorough, and they addressed many of the important problems pertaining to center-state relations. The results of these proposals’ adoption and impact, however, have been uneven.
  2. Positive Effect: A few of the Commission’s recommendations, notably as those concerning the Governor’s position and the standards for enforcing President’s Rule, have significantly enhanced how the federal system operates. Article 356‘s abuse for political objectives has been curbed thanks in part to the recommendations.
  3. Implementation Gaps: Some proposals have been partially followed through on, but others have not. The division of authority between the federal government and the states is still a point of contention. Despite being reorganized, the Interstate Council and NDC have not always performed as well as intended.
  4. Evolution of Federalism: India’s federalism has changed over the years in response to shifting political climates and judicial interpretations. State administrations have argued for greater autonomy and authority over resources and decision-making, especially those led by regional parties. The implementation of the Sarkaria Commission’s recommendations has been impacted by this shifting environment.
  5. Need for Ongoing Review: India’s federal system is dynamic, and center-state relations are still changing, necessitating ongoing review. Periodic assessments and modifications are thus constantly required. The Punchhi Commission and the NITI Aayog are two subsequent commissions and committees that have suggested improvements to center-state relations.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here