The politics of centre-state relations: phases, autonomy demands and flashpoints

Detail

Why politics shapes centre-state relations

• Centre-state relations means how the Union government and the state governments share power and money, and how they cooperate or clash.
• NCERT's line: "The Constitution is the skeleton; politics the flesh." The written rules (the three lists in the Seventh Schedule, Articles 245-293, Article 356) stay mostly the same. How they are used depends on which parties rule in Delhi and in the states.
• One numbers check shows this. States brought under President's rule (direct central rule of a state under Article 356) per year [5]:

Period	Average number of states put under President's rule per year	Political context
1947-1966	1.1	Congress dominance
1967-1993	6	Congress lost many states
1994 onwards	1.5	After the Bommai judgment

Phase 1 — 1950s to mid-1960s: Congress dominance

• Jawaharlal Nehru led the Congress, which ruled at the centre and in almost all states.
• Disputes were settled inside the party, not between governments. Relations were mostly smooth.
• The one big source of tension was the demand for new states, mainly linguistic states (states drawn on the basis of language). This led to the States Reorganisation Act, 1956.
• States were hopeful that central grants and Five-Year Plans (Planning Commission, 1950) would bring development.
• Exception: Kerala, 1959. The elected Communist government of E.M.S. Namboodiripad was dismissed under Article 356. This is the first big example of the centre removing an opposition state government.

Phase 2 — After 1967: opposition states vs a Congress centre

• In the 1967 elections, non-Congress parties came to power in many states. Congress still ruled at the centre.
• Result: states protested against central interference, and the centre used Article 356 against state governments.
• In several states after 1967, elected governments were dismissed without testing their majority on the floor of the House.
• 1977: the new Janata government at the centre dissolved Congress-ruled state assemblies in bulk.
• 1980: after Congress returned to power, it did the same to non-Congress assemblies.

• 1984: the Andhra Pradesh (N.T. Rama Rao) and Jammu & Kashmir (Farooq Abdullah) governments were dismissed.

• This is when the debate on state autonomy began (see below).

• Sarkaria Commission, the official response:
• Set up on 9 June 1983 under Justice R.S. Sarkaria to review centre-state arrangements.
• Reported in 1988 with 247 recommendations [3].
• Main advice:
  • use Article 356 only as a last resort;
  • test a government's majority only on the floor of the House;
  • choose Governors from outside the state who are not active in politics, after consulting the Chief Minister;
  • give Governors security of tenure [5][4].
• It asked for a permanent Inter-Governmental Council under Article 263. The Inter-State Council was set up by Presidential notification on 28 May 1990, chaired by the Prime Minister [3].

Phase 3 — After 1989-90: coalitions and "more mature federalism"

• From 1989, no single party won a Lok Sabha majority for 25 years. Coalition governments at the centre depended on regional parties, such as the DMK, TDP and Akali Dal.
• Result: regional parties had a direct share in central power, so the centre could not easily bully states. NCERT calls this "a more mature federalism".
• S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) backed this change:
• The Supreme Court held that the President's proclamation under Article 356 can be challenged in court (judicial review, the power of courts to strike down unconstitutional acts).
• A government's majority must be tested on the floor of the House, not in the Governor's residence.

• Effect: arbitrary dismissal of state governments became hard. Use of Article 356 fell to about 1.5 states per year after 1994 [5].

• Beyond NCERT:

• From 2014, a single-party majority returned at the centre. New frictions followed, such as Governor-state disputes and complaints about central agencies.
• NITI Aayog (2015) replaced the Planning Commission in the name of cooperative federalism (the centre and states working together as partners).
• After the 2024 Lok Sabha election, the Union government again depends on coalition partners (verify current).

Forms of state autonomy demands

• State autonomy is a demand that states get more powers and more say inside the Indian Union, not outside it.
• NCERT lists four forms:

Form	What states want	Examples
Redistribution of powers	More subjects in the State List, fewer in the Union and Concurrent Lists	Tamil Nadu (DMK), Punjab (Akali Dal), West Bengal (CPI(M))
Financial autonomy	Own sources of revenue and less dependence on central grants	West Bengal Left Front document, 1977
Administrative control	Less central control over the state's officers and administration	Objection to all-India services and central agencies
Cultural and linguistic protection	Protect the local language and culture	Opposition to Hindi imposition (Tamil Nadu); promotion of Punjabi (Punjab)

Rajamannar Committee (1969-71) and Tamil Nadu's autonomy line

• Rajamannar Committee: set up by Tamil Nadu's DMK government (Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi) in 1969 under Dr P.V. Rajamannar to study centre-state relations. It reported in 1971.
• Main demands:
• set up an Inter-State Council at once (Article 263);
• give residuary powers to the states. These are powers over subjects not named in any list, which now go to Parliament under Article 248 and Entry 97, List I;
• delete Articles 356 and 357 (President's rule, and Parliament's power to make laws for a state under it);

• give states more financial freedom, with a larger share of central taxes.

• 1974: the Tamil Nadu Assembly passed an autonomy resolution based on the report.

• The Punjab parallel, the Anandpur Sahib Resolution (1973), is covered in regional-aspirations.
• Recent example: Tamil Nadu set up a High-Level Committee on Union-State Relations under Justice Kurian Joseph in 2025 (verify current).

Autonomy vs secession

• Secession means a region breaking away from India to form a separate country. The Constitution has no place for it.
• Autonomy asks for more power within the Union. It is a legitimate democratic demand.
• Dravida Nadu: the early DMK demanded a separate Dravidian nation.
• Response: the Committee on National Integration and Regionalism of the National Integration Council advised giving the state powers to protect India's sovereignty and integrity [2].
• Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963 [2]:
  • amended Article 19(2), (3) and (4) so that the state can put reasonable restrictions on speech, assembly and association "in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India";
  • amended the Third Schedule (forms of oath). Candidates for Parliament and state legislatures, Union and state ministers, MPs and MLAs, Supreme Court and High Court judges and the CAG must now swear to uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India.
• Effect: a party seeking secession could not contest elections without breaking its oath. The DMK dropped Dravida Nadu in 1963 and moved to autonomy politics.

Flashpoint 1 — The Governor

• Why the Governor is a flashpoint: the Governor is not elected. The President appoints the Governor on the Union government's advice, and the Governor holds office "during the pleasure of the President" (Article 156). States see the Governor as the centre's agent.
• Where the Governor clashes with states:
• a report to the President that the state government cannot run by the Constitution, which can lead to Article 356;
• reserving state bills for the President (Article 200/201);

• deciding whom to invite to form a government when no party has a clear majority.

• Reform proposals:

• Sarkaria (1988): choose non-partisan, outside-the-state Governors; consult the CM; do not remove a Governor before the five-year term ends except in rare cases [4][5].

• Punchhi Commission: set up 27 April 2007 under Justice M.M. Punchhi; reported 31 March 2010 with 273 recommendations [3]. It proposed deleting "during the pleasure of the President", so that a Governor could be removed only by a resolution of the state legislature [4].

• Recent friction:

• Punjab: the Governor refused to call the Assembly into session after a cabinet recommendation.
• Tamil Nadu: Governor R.N. Ravi returned bills and left out parts of the Governor's Address.

• Similar disputes arose in Kerala, West Bengal and Maharashtra [5].

• Assent to bills — the court battle:

• Under Article 200, the Governor can do one of three things with a bill [7][8]:
  • assent to it;
  • reserve it for the President;
  • withhold assent and return it to the legislature with comments. A money bill cannot be returned.
• State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (8 April 2025): a two-judge bench held that the Governor has no discretion to sit on bills and set time limits for acting on them [6].
• 16th Presidential Reference (Article 143), May 2025: the President asked the Court 14 questions on assent to bills [7].
• Five-judge opinion of 20 November 2025 [7][8]:
  • courts cannot prescribe timelines for assent;
  • there is no "deemed assent" (a bill does not count as approved just because time has passed);
  • the Governor's functions under Article 200 are not justiciable (cannot be examined by courts). The only exception is prolonged inaction, when the Court may give limited directions.

Flashpoint 2 — Article 356 (President's rule)

• How President's rule works:
• Step 1: the Governor reports, or the President is otherwise satisfied, that the state government cannot be carried on by the Constitution. The President then issues a proclamation.
• Step 2: both Houses of Parliament must approve it by simple majority within two months.
• Step 3: once approved, it lasts six months. It can be extended six months at a time, up to three years. Going beyond one year needs extra conditions under the 44th Amendment (1978).

• Step 4: the state assembly is suspended or dissolved, and Parliament makes the state's laws (Article 357).

• NCERT's exercise asks what justifies President's rule:

• Justified: a real breakdown, such as no party being able to form a government, or the state refusing to follow the Constitution.

• Not justified: dismissing a government that still has a majority, or punishing a government for political differences.

• Bommai (1994) is the test case. Details are in emergency-provisions.

Current frictions (one line each)

• Central agencies: opposition states say the CBI and ED are used against their leaders. Several states have withdrawn general consent for the CBI.
• Governors' conduct: delay on bills, the content of the Address, and university appointments.
• Withheld funds: states complain that central scheme money and GST compensation are delayed or held back.
• NEET: Tamil Nadu opposes a single national medical entrance test. Education is in the Concurrent List (shared between centre and states) since the 42nd Amendment (1976).
• All-India service deputation: a proposed change would let the centre call IAS officers to central service without the state's consent.
• BSF jurisdiction: the BSF's area of operation inside border states such as Punjab and West Bengal was widened.
• Delimitation after 2026: redrawing Lok Sabha seats on new population figures may cut the southern states' share of seats (see elections-electoral-system).
• Simultaneous elections ("One Nation, One Election"): states fear their assemblies' terms will be tied to the Lok Sabha's (see electoral-reforms).

Prelims Hooks

• Rajamannar Committee: appointed by Tamil Nadu's DMK government in 1969, reported in 1971. It sought residuary powers for states and deletion of Arts. 356-357.
• Sixteenth Amendment (1963): "sovereignty and integrity of India" added as a ground for restrictions in Art. 19(2), (3), (4), and to the oaths in the Third Schedule [2].
• Sarkaria Commission: set up in 1983, reported in 1988 with 247 recommendations. It led to the Inter-State Council (Art. 263), notified on 28 May 1990 [3].
• Punchhi Commission: 2007-2010, 273 recommendations. It proposed deleting "during the pleasure of the President" for Governors [3][4].
• Financial autonomy demand: the West Bengal Left Front document (1977), not the Rajamannar report.
• S.R. Bommai (1994): the President's rule proclamation is open to judicial review, and majority is tested on the floor.
• Article 200 options: assent, reserve for the President, or withhold and return. A money bill cannot be returned [8].
• November 2025 Presidential Reference opinion: no deemed assent and no court-fixed timelines for Governors [8].
• Trap: autonomy (more power within the Union) is constitutional. Secession has no constitutional place.

Mains Points

• "Politics is the flesh": centre-state relations have changed with party politics. Congress dominance gave smooth ties (1950-67). One-party centres facing opposition states led to Article 356 misuse (1967-89; about 6 states a year [5]). Coalitions and Bommai gave mature federalism. Single-party majorities after 2014 brought Governor-state friction back.
• Autonomy is not anti-national: the DMK moved from Dravida Nadu to the Rajamannar autonomy agenda after the 16th Amendment (1963). This shows democracy can absorb regional demands by giving space within the Union. Use it to answer "Is regionalism a threat to unity?" (GS-I/GS-II).
• Reforming the Governor's office: Sarkaria (non-partisan, consult the CM, secure tenure) and Punchhi (removal only by state legislature resolution) [4][5]. After the 2025 opinion, courts cannot fix timelines [8], so a constitutional amendment setting time limits under Art. 200 is the remaining fix.
• New fault lines: post-2026 delimitation (population vs performance), fiscal transfers and simultaneous elections. Possible remedies: a regular, active Inter-State Council (Art. 263), tax-sharing rules that do not punish states that controlled population growth, and consulting states before central laws on Concurrent List subjects.