Polity
Centre-State Relations
Commissions on Centre-State Relations
ARC 1966, Rajamannar, Anandpur Sahib, Sarkaria (1983–88) and Punchhi (2007–10) commissions, S.R. Bommai and the nature of Indian federalism, for CGPSC.
Prerequisites
- Legislative Relations — the Concurrent List and Governor’s assent, which the commissions discussed.
- Administrative Relations — the Inter-State Council and All-India Services.
- Financial Relations — the fiscal transfers the commissions wanted reformed.
The Hook: A State That Has Never Seen President’s Rule
Connect
Since its creation on 1 November 2000, Chhattisgarh has never been placed under President’s Rule (as of 2026), and no government has fallen mid-term. Its parent state, Madhya Pradesh, was not so lucky: its government was dismissed under Article 356 in December 1992, one of the dismissals the Supreme Court later examined in the S.R. Bommai case.
Across India, Article 356 has been used many times, often against state governments of parties in opposition at the Centre. That pattern pushed one committee and commission after another to ask: how should power be shared, and how can its misuse be prevented? This page covers their answers.
Why it matters: Prelims asks chairs, years and signature recommendations (Sarkaria’s Inter-Governmental Council, Punchhi’s “localised emergency”). Mains asks you to evaluate Article 356, the Governor’s office, and whether Indian federalism is “quasi-federal”.
The Timeline
timeline
title Reviews of Centre-State relations
1966-1969 : Administrative Reforms Commission (report 1969)
1969-1971 : Rajamannar Committee (Tamil Nadu)
1973 : Anandpur Sahib Resolution (Akali Dal)
1977 : West Bengal Memorandum
1983-1988 : Sarkaria Commission
1990 : Inter-State Council set up
1994 : S.R. Bommai judgment
2007-2010 : Punchhi Commission
2015 : NITI Aayog replaces Planning Commission
2025 : Tamil Nadu high-level committee on state autonomy1. Administrative Reforms Commission (1966)
| Point | Detail |
|---|---|
| Set up | 5 January 1966 by the Union Government |
| Chair | Morarji Desai, later K. Hanumanthaiya |
| Study team | Centre-State relations examined by a study team under M.C. Setalvad |
| Report | 1969, with 22 recommendations on Centre-State relations |
Key recommendations: set up an Inter-State Council under Art 263; appoint as Governors persons of long experience in public life who are non-partisan; delegate maximum powers to states; give states more financial resources; deploy central armed forces in states on request or otherwise. No action was taken on the report.
2. Rajamannar Committee (1969) — a State’s View
| Point | Detail |
|---|---|
| Appointed by | Tamil Nadu Government (DMK), 1969 |
| Chair | Dr P.V. Rajamannar |
| Report | 1971, to the Tamil Nadu Government |
Key recommendations (pro-state autonomy):
- Set up an Inter-State Council immediately.
- Make the Finance Commission a permanent body.
- Disband the Planning Commission and replace it with a statutory body.
- Omit Articles 356, 357 and 365 (President’s Rule).
- Transfer residuary powers to the states, and move some subjects from the Union and Concurrent Lists to the State List.
- Abolish the All-India Services (IAS, IPS, IFS).
The Central Government ignored the report.
3. Anandpur Sahib Resolution (1973) and West Bengal Memorandum (1977)
| Document | Origin | Core demand |
|---|---|---|
| Anandpur Sahib Resolution | Shiromani Akali Dal, Punjab, 1973 | Centre’s jurisdiction limited to defence, foreign affairs, communications and currency; all residuary powers to states |
| West Bengal Memorandum | Left Front Government of West Bengal, 1977 | Among its demands: replace “union” with “federal”; delete Arts 356, 357 and 360; give 75% of the Centre’s total revenue to states; give the Rajya Sabha equal powers with the Lok Sabha; separate services for the Centre and states in place of All-India Services |
Both reflected a demand for a much looser federation. The Centre did not accept either.
4. Sarkaria Commission (1983–1988)
| Point | Detail |
|---|---|
| Set up | June 1983, by the Union Government |
| Chair | Justice R.S. (Ranjit Singh) Sarkaria, retired Supreme Court judge |
| Members | B. Sivaraman and Dr S.R. Sen |
| Report | Submitted in January 1988: 19 chapters, 247 recommendations |
| Stance | Did not favour curtailing the Centre’s powers; held a strong Centre necessary for national unity, but urged consultation and restraint |
Key recommendations:
| Area | Recommendation |
|---|---|
| Inter-State Council | A permanent council under Art 263, called the Inter-Governmental Council |
| Article 356 | Use very sparingly, in extreme cases, as a last resort when all alternatives fail |
| Governor | An eminent person from outside the state, not too closely connected with its politics, and not someone who had recently taken an active part in politics; appointed after consulting the Chief Minister; five-year term not to be cut short except for rare and compelling reasons |
| Residuary powers | Taxation residuary power to stay with Parliament; other residuary powers to move to the Concurrent List |
| Concurrent List | The Centre should consult states before legislating on Concurrent subjects |
| Zonal Councils | Reconstitute and reactivate them |
| All-India Services | Strengthen them and create more |
| Central forces | The Centre may deploy its armed forces in a state without its consent, but it is desirable to consult the state |
| Planning | Rename the National Development Council as the National Economic and Development Council |
Outcome: The Centre acted on a number of recommendations; the most visible was the Inter-State Council (1990).
5. Punchhi Commission (2007–2010)
| Point | Detail |
|---|---|
| Set up | 27 April 2007, by the Union Government |
| Chair | Justice Madan Mohan Punchhi, former Chief Justice of India |
| Report | 30 March 2010: seven volumes, 273 recommendations |
| Context | Coalition era, new security challenges (terrorism, Left-wing extremism), economic reforms, and the Bommai judgment |
Key recommendations:
| Area | Recommendation |
|---|---|
| “Localised emergency” | Arts 355 and 356 should allow emergency rule over a district or part of a state, for a limited period, rather than the whole state |
| Article 356 | Use only as a last resort; incorporate the Bommai safeguards |
| Governor: tenure | A fixed term of five years |
| Governor: removal | Only through a resolution of the State legislature, an impeachment-like procedure, not at the Centre’s will |
| Governor: assent | Decide on Bills within six months |
| Governor: other roles | Should not be burdened with posts such as Chancellor of universities |
| Inter-State Council | Make it a vibrant forum that meets regularly (it suggested at least three times a year) |
| Concurrent List and treaties | Consult states through the Inter-State Council before Concurrent List laws, and involve states in treaties affecting State subjects |
The 11th meeting of the Inter-State Council (16 July 2016) took up the Punchhi recommendations, but most remain unimplemented.
6. Judicial Milestones on Federalism
| Case | Year | Held |
|---|---|---|
| S.R. Bommai v. Union of India | 1994 (nine judges) | Art 356 proclamation is subject to judicial review; majority to be tested on the floor of the House, not in the Governor’s chamber; Assembly should not be dissolved before Parliament approves the proclamation (only suspended); federalism and secularism are part of the basic structure |
| Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India | 2006 | Dissolution of the Bihar Assembly in 2005 held unconstitutional |
| B.P. Singhal v. Union of India | 2010 | Governors cannot be removed arbitrarily or merely because of a change of government at the Centre |
| Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker | 2016 | Arunachal Pradesh case: the Governor’s discretion is limited, and his advancing the Assembly session without the advice of the Council of Ministers was held unconstitutional |
| Presidential Reference on Assent | 20 Nov 2025 | No court-fixed timelines or “deemed assent” for Governors and the President, but no indefinite delay either |
7. Recent Development: State-Level Reviews Again (as of 2026)
In April 2025, the Tamil Nadu Government set up a three-member high-level committee headed by retired Supreme Court judge Justice Kurian Joseph, with Ashok Vardhan Shetty and M. Naganathan as members, to review Centre-State relations and state autonomy. It echoes the Rajamannar Committee of 1969, also set up by Tamil Nadu. Check the latest status of its report before quoting it.
Nature of Indian Federalism: the Labels
| Scholar / source | Description |
|---|---|
| K.C. Wheare | “Quasi-federal” |
| Ivor Jennings | A federation with a strong centralising tendency |
| Granville Austin | Cooperative federalism |
| Morris-Jones | Bargaining federalism |
| Dr B.R. Ambedkar | Called it a “Union” because it is indestructible; said the Constitution can be both unitary and federal according to time and circumstances |
| S.R. Bommai (1994) | Federalism is part of the basic structure |
| NITI Aayog era (2015–) | Cooperative and competitive federalism |
Analysis for Mains: What Changed, What Did Not
| Implemented (fully or partly) | Still pending or contested |
|---|---|
| Inter-State Council (1990) | Regular ISC meetings (none at full level since 2016, as of 2026) |
| Bommai safeguards on Art 356 (through the courts, not law) | Fixed tenure and removal procedure for Governors |
| Fewer dismissals of state governments since the 1990s | “Localised emergency” |
| GST Council as a cooperative fiscal forum (2016) | Consultation before Concurrent List laws |
| B.P. Singhal limits on Governor removal | Time limit for Governor’s assent (2025 opinion left it to constitutional restraint) |
Chhattisgarh angle: a state with stable governments and no President’s Rule since 2000 (as of 2026) shows the Bommai and Sarkaria safeguards working. Yet the state has used legal routes (the NIA Act suit, 2020), dispute forums (the Mahanadi tribunal, 2018) and fiscal bargaining (Finance Commission, GST Council) — the full toolkit of “bargaining federalism”.
Memory Tricks
Sarkaria vs Punchhi in numbers
Sarkaria = 3 members, 19 chapters, 247 recommendations (1983–88). Punchhi = 7 volumes, 273 recommendations (2007–10).
Trick: “247 → 273” — Punchhi came later and has more recommendations. Sarkaria’s 247 looks like “24×7”, a commission that worked round the clock for five years.
Order of the reviews: 'A Royal Anand Was Sorry, Punished'
ARC (1966) → Rajamannar (1969) → Anandpur Sahib (1973) → West Bengal (1977) → Sarkaria (1983) → Punchhi (2007).
Don’t Confuse
| This | vs | That |
|---|---|---|
| Sarkaria — “Inter-Governmental Council”, residuary tax powers stay with Parliament | vs | Punchhi — “localised emergency”, Governor removable by State legislature resolution |
| Rajamannar (1969) — appointed by Tamil Nadu | vs | Sarkaria (1983) / Punchhi (2007) — appointed by the Union |
| Rajamannar — delete Arts 356, 357, 365 | vs | West Bengal Memorandum — delete Arts 356, 357, 360 |
| Sarkaria — strengthen All-India Services | vs | Rajamannar — abolish All-India Services |
| Bommai (1994) — Art 356 reviewable; floor test | vs | B.P. Singhal (2010) — Governor’s removal |
Common Mistakes
MCQ traps
- “The Sarkaria Commission recommended transferring residuary powers of taxation to the states.” False. It wanted residuary taxation to stay with Parliament; only other residuary powers were to go to the Concurrent List.
- “The Rajamannar Committee was appointed by the Union Government.” False. It was appointed by the Tamil Nadu Government.
- “The Sarkaria Commission favoured a weaker Centre.” False. It held a strong Centre necessary, while urging restraint and consultation.
- "‘Localised emergency’ was a Sarkaria recommendation." False. It was Punchhi’s.
- “After Bommai, the Governor’s satisfaction under Art 356 cannot be questioned.” False. Bommai made the proclamation subject to judicial review.
- “Punchhi Commission submitted 247 recommendations.” False. Punchhi: 273; Sarkaria: 247.
Practice
All questions below are original practice questions written in CGPSC style. They are not previous-year questions.
Level 1: Foundation
- The Sarkaria Commission was headed by Justice ______ and submitted its report in ______.
- The concept of “localised emergency” was recommended by the ______ Commission.
- The Rajamannar Committee was appointed by the Government of ______.
Answers
- R.S. Sarkaria; 1988 (January).
- Punchhi Commission.
- Tamil Nadu (1969).
Level 2: Prelims MCQs
Q1. Consider the following statements about the Sarkaria Commission:
- It was set up in 1983 under the chairmanship of Justice R.S. Sarkaria.
- It recommended that residuary powers of taxation be transferred to the states.
- It recommended a permanent Inter-State Council under Article 263.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- (a) 1 only
- (b) 2 and 3 only
- (c) 1 and 3 only
- (d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer and explanation
(c) 1 and 3 only. Statement 2 is wrong: Sarkaria wanted residuary taxation powers to remain with Parliament, and other residuary powers to go to the Concurrent List. Statement 3 is correct; it called the body the Inter-Governmental Council, and the Inter-State Council was set up in 1990.
Q2. Match List I (Body) with List II (Recommendation associated with it):
| List I | List II |
|---|---|
| A. Rajamannar Committee | 1. “Localised emergency” under Arts 355 and 356 |
| B. Sarkaria Commission | 2. Abolition of the All-India Services |
| C. Punchhi Commission | 3. Centre’s jurisdiction limited to defence, foreign affairs, communications and currency |
| D. Anandpur Sahib Resolution | 4. Permanent Inter-Governmental Council under Article 263 |
- (a) A-2, B-4, C-1, D-3
- (b) A-3, B-4, C-1, D-2
- (c) A-2, B-1, C-4, D-3
- (d) A-4, B-2, C-3, D-1
Answer and explanation
(a) A-2, B-4, C-1, D-3. Rajamannar sought to abolish the All-India Services; Sarkaria proposed an Inter-Governmental Council; Punchhi proposed localised emergency; the Anandpur Sahib Resolution sought to limit the Centre to four subjects.
Q3. Which of the following was not held by the Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)?
- (a) A proclamation under Article 356 is subject to judicial review
- (b) The majority of a government should be tested on the floor of the House
- (c) The Governor’s report under Article 356 is final and cannot be examined by courts
- (d) Federalism is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution
Answer and explanation
(c). Bommai held the opposite: the material on which the President acts, including the Governor’s report, can be examined for relevance and mala fides. Options (a), (b) and (d) are all holdings of the nine-judge bench.
Q4. Arrange the following in chronological order:
- Punchhi Commission set up
- Rajamannar Committee set up
- Inter-State Council established
- Sarkaria Commission set up
- (a) 2-4-3-1
- (b) 4-2-3-1
- (c) 2-3-4-1
- (d) 2-4-1-3
Answer and explanation
(a) 2-4-3-1. Rajamannar (1969) → Sarkaria (1983) → Inter-State Council (1990) → Punchhi (2007).
Q5. Who described the Indian Constitution as “quasi-federal”?
- (a) Granville Austin
- (b) K.C. Wheare
- (c) Ivor Jennings
- (d) Morris-Jones
Answer and explanation
(b) K.C. Wheare. Granville Austin spoke of “cooperative federalism”, Ivor Jennings of a federation with a strong centralising tendency, and Morris-Jones of “bargaining federalism”.
Level 3: Mains Answer Writing
Q1. (60 words) What is meant by “localised emergency” as recommended by the Punchhi Commission?
Model answer outline
- Meaning: Applying emergency-type central control under Arts 355 and 356 to a district or part of a state, for a limited period, instead of the whole state.
- Rationale: Breakdowns of order (terrorism, Left-wing extremism, communal violence) are often local; dismissing an elected state government is disproportionate.
- Status: Recommended in 2010; not implemented.
Q2. (150–200 words) Compare the recommendations of the Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions on the office of the Governor and Article 356. How far have they been implemented?
Model answer outline
- Intro: Misuse of Art 356 and partisan Governors were the main triggers for both commissions (Sarkaria 1983–88, 247 recommendations; Punchhi 2007–10, 273 recommendations).
- Governor: Sarkaria — eminent outsider, not recently in active politics, CM consulted, tenure not cut short; Punchhi — fixed five-year tenure, removal only by State legislature resolution, decision on Bills within six months, no chancellorships.
- Art 356: Sarkaria — last resort, sparingly; Punchhi — last resort, Bommai safeguards, localised emergency.
- Implementation: Inter-State Council (1990); Bommai (1994) and B.P. Singhal (2010) made Art 356 and removal of Governors justiciable; the 2025 Presidential Reference ruled out indefinite delay on Bills but not fixed timelines. Fixed tenure, removal procedure and localised emergency remain unimplemented.
- Chhattisgarh angle: no President’s Rule since 2000 (as of 2026); stable governments show the safeguards working.
- Conclusion: The judiciary has implemented more of the commissions’ spirit than legislation has; codifying Governor-related conventions remains the pending reform.
Quick Revision Table
| Body | Year | Chair / origin | Remember |
|---|---|---|---|
| ARC | 1966 (report 1969) | Morarji Desai → K. Hanumanthaiya; study team M.C. Setalvad | 22 recommendations; ISC; non-partisan Governors |
| Rajamannar Committee | 1969 (report 1971) | P.V. Rajamannar; Tamil Nadu | Delete Arts 356, 357, 365; abolish AIS; permanent FC |
| Anandpur Sahib Resolution | 1973 | Akali Dal | Centre limited to 4 subjects |
| West Bengal Memorandum | 1977 | Left Front Govt | “Federal” for “union”; 75% revenue to states; delete 356, 357, 360 |
| Sarkaria Commission | 1983 (report Jan 1988) | R.S. Sarkaria; B. Sivaraman, S.R. Sen | 247 recommendations; Inter-Governmental Council; strong Centre |
| Inter-State Council | 1990 | Presidential order (Art 263) | Sarkaria’s main outcome |
| S.R. Bommai | 1994 | Nine-judge bench | Art 356 reviewable; floor test; federalism basic structure |
| Punchhi Commission | 2007 (report 2010) | M.M. Punchhi | 273 recommendations; localised emergency; Governor fixed tenure |
| B.P. Singhal | 2010 | Supreme Court | Governor not removable arbitrarily |
| TN high-level committee | 2025 | Justice Kurian Joseph | State autonomy review |
| Chhattisgarh | 2000–2026 | — | Never under President’s Rule (as of 2026) |
Key Takeaways
Key Takeaways
- State-driven reviews (Rajamannar, Anandpur Sahib, West Bengal) sought a looser federation; Union-appointed ones (ARC, Sarkaria, Punchhi) kept a strong Centre but urged restraint.
- Sarkaria (1988, 247): Inter-Governmental Council, Art 356 as last resort, outsider Governors, residuary taxation with Parliament.
- Punchhi (2010, 273): localised emergency, fixed tenure and legislature-led removal of Governors, six months for assent.
- Bommai (1994) did more than any commission to curb Art 356: judicial review, floor test, federalism as basic structure.
- Chhattisgarh, with no President’s Rule since 2000 (as of 2026), is a good Mains example of stable federal functioning.
What’s Next
- Centre-State Relations — Quick Revision — the whole chapter on one page
- Union Executive — the President’s emergency powers in Arts 352, 356 and 360
- Judiciary — Art 131 and the Supreme Court as the federal umpire
- Local Government in India — the third tier of Indian federalism
Advertisement