Social Justice Desk

Constitutional Framework and Power Sharing

Indian federalism divides legislative, executive, and financial functions between the Centre and states, aiming for a cooperative system. However, the framework grants significant supremacy to the Centre, especially in legislative and financial matters. Laws passed by Parliament in the concurrent list override state legislation, and the Governor, appointed by the President, is often perceived as an instrument of central influence in state governance.

Disputes Over Funds

• Disaster Relief Funds: In 2025, opposition-ruled states such as Karnataka and Tamil Nadu approached the Supreme Court, accusing the Centre of withholding disaster relief funds and showing "step-motherly treatment" in releasing financial assistance. Such disputes are frequent, especially when state and central governments belong to different parties.
• GST and Tax Sharing: Though the Goods and Services Tax (GST) streamlined revenue collection, many states raise concerns over delays in compensation payouts and the criteria used for revenue sharing by central Finance Commissions.
• Economic Planning and Resource Control: Economic planning in India has progressively favoured centralisation, with transfer of industry and policy control from the State List to the Union List, reducing state autonomy in crucial areas.

Jurisdiction and Legislative Clashes

• Central Laws Challenged: Kerala and Chhattisgarh have approached the Supreme Court challenging central laws like the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, alleging that these infringe upon their legislative powers and disrupt social harmony.
• Delays in State Legislation: The Centre holds significant discretion over assent to state bills. For example, crucial laws like the Gujarat Control of Organised Crime Act (GUJCOCA) faced years-long delays by the President, which critics claim is politically motivated.
• Imposition of President’s Rule: Article 356 allows the Centre to dismiss state governments when constitutional machinery "fails," used more frequently for political reasons than genuine breakdowns, deepening mistrust.

Policy Tensions and Opposition-Governed States

• Delimitation and Census: Leaders like Mayawati have highlighted how disputes regarding Lok Sabha seat reallocation, census policies, and education reforms become tools for political gain rather than genuine cooperation.
• Education and Language Policies: States such as Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra have resisted central imposition of the National Education Policy and "Hindi imposition," viewing such steps as undermining regional identity and autonomy.
• Governor-State Government Conflicts: In states ruled by opposition parties (Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Telangana), the post-2014 appointment of Governors by the Centre has escalated conflict, with state leadership accusing them of partisan interference in day-to-day governance.

Judiciary's Role and Resolution Mechanisms

• Article 131 Cases: The Supreme Court routinely adjudicates disputes under Article 131, which provides original jurisdiction over Centre-state conflicts, especially on questions of law, appropriation of funds, and jurisdiction.
• Presidential References: The Centre has sought judicial clarity on timelines for granting Governor and Presidential assent to state bills, reflecting increasing legal contention over administrative processes.

Recommendations and Future Directions

• Sarkaria Commission’s Proposals: Experts recommend strengthening All-India Services, limiting central occupation of policy areas on the concurrent list, and promoting genuine consultation in policy decisions to reduce friction.
• Cooperative Federalism: A return to cooperative federalism—rooted in respect, transparent sharing of resources, and dialogue—is essential for balancing national interests with state autonomy and development priorities.

India's federal system faces complex challenges as tensions over funds, jurisdiction, and policy deepen between the Centre and opposition-ruled states. The way forward lies in clarifying constitutional roles, enforcing transparent rules, and promoting meaningful intergovernmental cooperation to protect both national unity and regional diversity.