GS 2 Mains Practice Questions: Centre- State & Inter State Relations | Indian Polity for UPSC CSE PDF Download

Question 1: Discuss the key provisions that govern Centre–State relations in India and their role in maintaining federal harmony. (150 words)

Answer:

Introduction

India’s federal system balances national unity with State autonomy through clear constitutional rules. These rules help the Centre and States work together, ensuring peace and unity in a diverse country. They promote teamwork while respecting regional needs.

Body

Key Provisions

• Seventh Schedule (Article 246): Divides powers into Union, State, and Concurrent Lists, giving clear roles to Centre (e.g., defence) and States (e.g., agriculture).

• Finance Commission (Article 280): Shares taxes fairly, like the 15th Finance Commission (2020–26) giving 41% to States, supporting weaker regions.

• Emergency Powers (Article 356): Allows Centre to step in during State crises, but S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) limits misuse to protect State rights.

Role in Federal Harmony

• Teamwork: GST Council (2023–24 decisions) shows Centre–State cooperation in tax policies.

• Court Support: Supreme Court settles disputes, ensuring balance.

Conclusion

Constitutional rules like the Seventh Schedule and Finance Commission ensure federal harmony by promoting teamwork and fairness, keeping India united despite diversity.

Question 2: Critically analyze the impact of GST on Centre–State financial relations and its implications for cooperative federalism. (250 words)

Answer:

Introduction

The Goods and Services Tax (GST), launched in 2017 under Article 246A, changed how the Centre and States share money. It aimed to unify taxes and boost teamwork, but it also caused tensions. This answer looks at GST’s impact on Centre–State ties and cooperative federalism.

Impact on Financial Relations

• Single Tax System: GST replaced many State and Central taxes, creating one market. This made trade easier, like faster goods transport across States (2023 data: 20% logistics cost reduction).

• Revenue Sharing: The GST Council splits taxes, with States getting 50% of SGST. The Centre promised compensation (2017–22) for revenue losses, but delays upset States like Kerala.

• Less State Control: States can’t set their own taxes anymore, reducing their financial freedom and increasing reliance on the Centre.

Implications for Cooperative Federalism

• Teamwork Boost: The GST Council, with Centre and State leaders, encourages joint decisions, like fixing tax rates in 2024 meetings, aligning with the Preamble’s unity goal.

• Economic Gains: GST increased tax collection (2024: ₹20 lakh crore), helping both Centre and States fund development.

• Tensions: States like Tamil Nadu (2023 protests) complained about delayed payments and less say in tax rates, straining federal trust.

Critical Analysis

• Strengths: GST promotes a unified economy and cooperative governance, reducing tax confusion and boosting trade.

• Challenges: Central control over rates and delayed funds (e.g., ₹1.5 lakh crore pending in 2022–23) make States feel sidelined, harming federal balance.

• Court Role: Union of India v. Mohit Minerals (2022) upheld States’ GST rights, pushing for fairness.

Conclusion

GST has unified India’s economy and encouraged teamwork, but central control and payment delays challenge cooperative federalism. More State involvement in the GST Council and timely fund releases are needed to strengthen federal harmony.

Question 3: Examine the role of constitutional mechanisms like the Inter-State Council and Supreme Court in resolving inter-State disputes, with relevant examples. (250 words)

Answer:

Introduction

Inter-State disputes, like those over rivers or borders, test India’s federal unity. Constitutional tools like the Inter-State Council and Supreme Court help solve these conflicts, keeping States united. This answer explores their roles with recent examples.

Body

Role of Inter-State Council

• Discussion Platform: Set up under Article 263, the Council encourages States to talk and solve issues, avoiding court battles.

• Example: In 2023, it discussed the Krishna water dispute between Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, pushing for peaceful talks, though final solutions are pending.

• Policy Unity: It aligns States on issues like trade, as seen in 2024 GST Council meetings.

Role of Supreme Court

• Legal Authority: Under Article 131, the Court directly handles inter-State disputes, giving binding decisions.

• Examples: In State of Karnataka v. State of Tamil Nadu (2018), the Court settled the Cauvery water dispute by allocating fair shares. In 2024, it addressed the Assam-Meghalaya border dispute, ensuring clear boundaries.

Critical Analysis

• Strengths: The Council promotes friendly solutions, while the Court’s rulings, like Cauvery, enforce fairness, supporting the Preamble’s unity goal.

• Challenges: The Council’s advice isn’t binding, slowing resolutions (e.g., Krishna dispute). States sometimes ignore Court orders, like Karnataka in Cauvery (2023 protests), causing delays.

• Teamwork Role: Together, they balance talk and law, strengthening federal unity, but need stronger powers.

Conclusion

The Inter-State Council and Supreme Court are key to solving inter-State disputes, ensuring federal harmony through dialogue and legal rulings. Empowering the Council and ensuring States follow Court orders, as in recent cases, will make them more effective in uniting India.

Question 4: Discuss the relevance of the Sarkaria Commission’s recommendations in addressing contemporary challenges in federal governance. (150 words)

Answer:

Introduction

The Sarkaria Commission (1983–88) gave suggestions to improve Centre–State relations, promoting cooperative federalism. Its ideas are still relevant for today’s challenges like central control and money disputes. This answer discusses their importance.

Body

Relevance of Recommendations

• Limiting Article 356: The Commission said President’s Rule should be rare, a rule upheld in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), protecting States from central misuse.

• Stronger Inter-State Council: It suggested an active Council to solve disputes, vital for issues like GST delays in 2023–24.

• Fair Money Sharing: Its focus on equal tax distribution guides the Finance Commission’s work, like 41% tax share in 2024, helping poorer States.

Contemporary Challenges

• Central Control: Policies like GST (2023 disputes) show central dominance, where consultation advice applies.

• State Grievances: Uneven funds distribution needs the Commission’s equity focus.

Conclusion

The Sarkaria Commission’s ideas help tackle centralization and fiscal issues, strengthening federal teamwork. Activating the Inter-State Council and ensuring fair funds are key to its ongoing relevance.

Question 5: Critically evaluate the impact of central policies on Centre–State relations, with reference to recent legislative measures. (250 words)

Answer:

Introduction

Central policies in India often aim for national progress but can strain Centre–State relations by limiting State freedom. Recent laws like GST and others have sparked debates on federal overreach. This answer evaluates their impact on India’s federal system.

Body

Impact of Central Policies

• GST (2017): Under Article 246A, GST unified taxes but took away States’ power to set rates. In 2023, States like Kerala protested delayed compensation (₹20,000 crore pending), straining ties.

• Digital Personal Data Protection Act (2023): This central law on data privacy (Concurrent List) faced pushback from States like Tamil Nadu, who wanted more say, citing regional needs.

• Agnipath Scheme (2022): The Centre’s military recruitment policy sparked protests in States like Bihar, with States arguing it ignored local job concerns, creating tensions.

Critical Evaluation

• Positive Impacts: GST boosted trade (2024: ₹8 lakh crore revenue), and uniform policies like Agnipath aim for national efficiency, aligning with unity goals.

• Negative Impacts: Central control reduces State power, as seen in GST rate disputes, weakening the Seventh Schedule’s balance. Protests over Agnipath show ignored regional concerns.

• Court Role: Union of India v. Mohit Minerals (2022) gave States GST rights, but central dominance persists, harming cooperative federalism.

Challenges to Federalism

• Money Dependency: States rely on central funds, limiting their freedom, as seen in 2023 GST disputes.

• Regional Anger: Policies ignoring local needs, like data laws, fuel State resentment, risking federal unity.

Conclusion

Central policies like GST and Agnipath promote national goals but strain Centre–State relations by curbing State power. More State involvement in laws and timely fund releases, guided by the Preamble’s teamwork spirit, are needed to strengthen federal harmony.

Question 6: Analyze the constitutional and institutional mechanisms for resolving inter-State river water disputes and suggest measures to enhance their efficacy. (250 words)

Answer:

Introduction

Inter-State river water disputes, like Cauvery and Godavari, challenge India’s federal unity due to competing State needs. Constitutional and institutional tools aim to solve these, but delays and defiance limit success. This answer looks at these mechanisms and suggests improvements.

Body

Constitutional Mechanisms

• Article 262: Gives Parliament power to make laws for water disputes, keeping the Supreme Court out, as in the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956.

• Seventh Schedule: Entry 56 (Union List) lets the Centre manage inter-State rivers, while Entry 17 (State List) gives States water control, causing conflicts.

Institutional Mechanisms

• Tribunals: Tribunals like the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (1990) allocate water, but delays (decades-long) frustrate States. In 2023, Karnataka-Tamil Nadu tensions persisted over Cauvery.

• Inter-State Council (Article 263): Encourages talks, like in the Godavari dispute (2024), but its advice isn’t binding, slowing solutions.

• Supreme Court: Despite Article 262, the Court steps in, as in State of Karnataka v. State of Tamil Nadu (2018), enforcing Cauvery water sharing.

Challenges

• Slow Tribunals: Long delays, like in Cauvery, frustrate States and delay justice.

• State Defiance: Karnataka’s 2023 non-compliance with Cauvery orders shows enforcement issues.

• Politics: Regional politics, as in Godavari disputes, complicates fair agreements.

Suggestions for Enhancement

• Faster Tribunals: Set strict deadlines (e.g., 3 years) for tribunal decisions.

• Stronger Council: Give the Inter-State Council legal power to enforce agreements.

• Scientific Data: Use water management tech (2024 satellite mapping) for fair allocation.

Conclusion

Mechanisms like Article 262 and tribunals address water disputes, but delays and defiance weaken them. Faster tribunals, a stronger Council, and tech-based solutions can improve fairness and federal unity, supporting the Preamble’s goals.