The Commissions on Centre-State Relations

What actually happened

The Inter-State Council was constituted on 28 May 1990, by Presidential order under article 263, on the Sarkaria Commission's recommendation. That is the single largest institutional result of forty years of commissions.

Article 356 was reformed by a court and not by a commission. Every one of the four bodies recommended restraint in its use, and what changed the practice was S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918; (1994) 3 SCC 1. Facts. Proclamations dismissing six State governments and Held. The satisfaction is subjective but conditioned, that relevant material is a precondition, that a Proclamation may be struck down if mala fide or based on wholly irrelevant or extraneous grounds, that the majority is to be tested on the floor of the House, and that the Assembly should not be dissolved before both Houses approve. Why it matters here is the comparison: four commissions recommended and one judgment delivered.

The Governor's office was not reformed. The recommendation that a Governor be appointed after consultation with the Chief Minister, or hold a fixed term, or be removable only on a resolution of the State Legislature, has never been implemented, and articles 155 and 156 stand as they were.

The residuary power was not moved. Article 248 and Entry 97 are unchanged.

And the All India Services were not abolished. Article 312 stands.

A worked example

A candidate is asked what the commissions achieved. What is the honest answer?

Name them with their dates and chairs, which is the recall part: Rajamannar 1971, Sarkaria 1988, Venkatachaliah 2002, Punchhi 2010.

Identify the recommendation each is best known for. Rajamannar: delete or curtail articles 356, 357 and 365 and move the residuary power to the States. Sarkaria: article 356 as a last resort with a prior warning, and the Inter-State Council. Venkatachaliah: a permanent Inter-State Council with a secretariat. Punchhi: a localised emergency confined to part of a State, and a fixed term for a Governor.

Then say what was implemented, which is the part that shows judgment. The Inter-State Council in 1990, and very little else. The reforms that actually changed Centre-State practice came from S.R. Bommai in 1994 and from the Forty-fourth Amendment in 1978.

And then draw the constitutional lesson. A commission can recommend and cannot compel, and reform of a provision that benefits whichever party holds the Union depends on that party's willingness. That is why the durable changes in Indian federalism have come from amendments passed in unusual political conditions and from judgments, rather than from expert reports.

Distinctions

What it does NOT mean

It does not mean the commissions were useless. The Inter-State Council exists because of Sarkaria, and the reports remain the standard reference for what is wrong and what might be done.

It does not mean their recommendations bind. None of them is a constitutional body and none of their reports has legal force.

It does not mean the Sarkaria Commission dealt with reorganisation. It dealt with Centre-State relations, and attributing the linguistic reorganisation recommendation to it is an error, which MU's own printed question has made.

And it does not mean reform is impossible. The Forty-fourth Amendment reformed the emergency provisions, and the 73rd, 74th and 101st Amendments each changed the federal structure substantially.

Quick revision

Rajamannar Committee 1969 to 1971, appointed by Tamil Nadu under Dr P.V. Rajamannar: delete or curtail articles 356, 357 and 365, a permanent Finance Commission, residuary powers to the States, abolition of the All India Services. Sarkaria Commission 1983 to 1988 under Justice R.S. Sarkaria, 247 recommendations: article 356 sparingly and as a last resort with a prior warning; a Governor from outside the State appointed after consultation with the Chief Minister; constitution of the Inter-State Council under article 263; residuary powers other than taxation to the Concurrent List. National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution 2000 to 2002 under Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah: a permanent Inter-State Council with a secretariat and safeguards for Governors. Punchhi Commission 2007 to 2010 under Justice M.M. Punchhi, seven volumes: a localised emergency confined to part of a State, a fixed term for a Governor with removal only on a resolution of the State Legislature, and consultation before treaties affecting State subjects. Implemented: the Inter-State Council, 28 May 1990. Not implemented: the Governor reforms, the residuary power, the All India Services. Article 356 was reformed by S.R. Bommai in 1994 instead.

Test yourself

1. Name the four bodies with their chairs and reporting years. The Rajamannar Committee under Dr P.V. Rajamannar, 1971; the Sarkaria Commission under Justice R.S. Sarkaria, 1988; the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution under Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah, 2002; and the Punchhi Commission under Justice M.M. Punchhi, 2010.

2. What was the Sarkaria Commission's most important recommendation about article 356? That it be used sparingly and only as a measure of last resort after all available alternatives have failed, and that a warning be issued to the errant State before it is used.

3. What is the single largest institutional result of the four reports? The Inter-State Council, established by Presidential order under article 263 on 28 May 1990 on the Sarkaria Commission's recommendation, forty years after the article first provided for it.

4. What did the Punchhi Commission recommend about article 356 that the others did not? That it be amended to permit a localised emergency confined to a district or part of a State rather than applying to the whole State.

5. What actually changed the practice under article 356, and when? S.R. Bommai v. Union of India in 1994, by holding the satisfaction conditioned and reviewable on relevant material, substituting the floor test, and requiring that the Assembly not be dissolved before both Houses approve.

6. Why is it an error to associate the Sarkaria Commission with linguistic reorganisation? Because Sarkaria was on Centre-State relations and reported in 1988. Reorganisation on the basis of language was considered by the Dhar Commission of 1948, the JVP Committee of 1949 and the States Reorganisation Commission of 1955.