S
Sahaj Vidhi
Law optional 2020 Paper I

Q3. (b) "An amendment of the Constitution of India for better Union and State relations is due." Comment on this statement and substantiate your recommendations for amendment of specific provisions of the Constitution, if any, on this matter.

Verified Answer

  1. Core Legal Answer & Context: The statement that an amendment of the Constitution of India for better Union and State relations is due reflects a persistent debate in Indian federalism. While the Indian Constitution establishes a strong center, it also provides for a robust federal structure. However, over decades, various issues have emerged, leading to friction and demands for reforms in Union-State relations. These issues often revolve around financial devolution, legislative overlaps, the role of the Governor, and the use of emergency provisions. Several commissions, notably the Sarkaria Commission (1983) and the Punchhi Commission (2007), have extensively studied these relations and made numerous recommendations, some of which suggest constitutional amendments.

  2. Recommendations for Amendment of Specific Provisions: While many issues can be resolved through administrative practices and political conventions, certain areas might benefit from constitutional amendments to provide greater clarity, certainty, and balance:

  • Role of the Governor (Articles 155, 156, 163, 200, 356):

    • Recommendation: Amend Article 155 to mandate consultation with the Chief Minister of the concerned state before appointing a Governor. Amend Article 156 to provide for a fixed tenure for the Governor, making removal more difficult and less politically motivated. Clarify the discretionary powers of the Governor under Article 163, especially regarding assent to bills (Article 200) and recommending President's Rule (Article 356).
    • Substantiation: The Governor's office has often been criticized for acting as an agent of the Union government, leading to political instability and undermining state autonomy. Amendments would ensure greater neutrality, accountability, and reduce instances of arbitrary actions, as highlighted by the Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions.

  • Financial Relations (Articles 268, 269, 270, 275, 280):

    • Recommendation: Review the distribution of taxing powers and the system of grants-in-aid. Consider a constitutional amendment to establish a permanent mechanism for revenue sharing beyond the quinquennial Finance Commission, or to give states greater autonomy in certain tax domains.
    • Substantiation: States frequently complain about inadequate financial resources and excessive dependence on the Union for funds. While the GST regime has streamlined indirect taxes, issues of fiscal federalism persist. Amendments could ensure a more equitable and predictable distribution of financial resources, strengthening state fiscal autonomy.

  • Inter-State Council (Article 263):

    • Recommendation: Amend Article 263 to make the Inter-State Council a more robust and permanent body with a clear mandate for dispute resolution and policy coordination, perhaps with a dedicated secretariat and greater enforcement powers for its recommendations.
    • Substantiation: The Inter-State Council, though constitutional, has not always functioned effectively as a forum for resolving inter-state disputes and fostering cooperative federalism. A stronger constitutional backing could enhance its role in promoting dialogue and consensus.

  • Emergency Provisions (Article 356):

    • Recommendation: While the Supreme Court has laid down strict guidelines for the use of Article 356, a constitutional amendment could codify these guidelines, making it harder for the Union government to impose President's Rule arbitrarily. Perhaps, requiring parliamentary approval before imposition, rather than after.
    • Substantiation: Article 356 has been the most controversial provision, frequently misused to dismiss state governments. Codifying the S.R. Bommai guidelines into the Constitution would provide a stronger safeguard against its arbitrary application.
  1. Important Landmark Cases:
  • S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): This landmark judgment significantly curtailed the arbitrary use of Article 356. The Supreme Court laid down strict guidelines for the imposition of President's Rule, making judicial review of such proclamations possible and requiring the Union to prove that the state government had lost the confidence of the assembly.
  • Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006): This case further clarified the limitations on the Governor's power to recommend the dissolution of a state assembly, emphasizing that the Governor must act on objective material and not on subjective satisfaction.
  1. Clear Conclusion: The statement holds considerable merit. While the Indian Constitution has proven resilient, the evolving socio-political and economic landscape necessitates a continuous review of Union-State relations. Constitutional amendments, particularly in areas concerning the Governor's role, financial devolution, and the Inter-State Council, could provide greater clarity, reduce friction, and foster a more balanced and cooperative federal structure, thereby strengthening Indian democracy.