Recommendations of Commissions on Centre-State Relations

Introduction

Several committees and commissions have examined Centre-State relations in India, particularly the use of Article 356, the role of Governors and the protection of State autonomy. Their recommendations aim to prevent the misuse of constitutional powers and improve cooperation between the Union and State Governments. The Administrative Reforms Commission, Governors' Committee, Rajamannar Committee, Sarkaria Commission and National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution made important recommendations on these issues.

Meaning of Recommendations on Centre-State Relations

Recommendations on Centre-State relations are proposals made by committees and commissions to improve the working relationship between the Union Government and State Governments.

A major concern has been the use of Article 356, which allows the President to impose President's Rule when the government of a State cannot be carried on in accordance with the Constitution.

Although this provision is intended to protect constitutional government, its use has raised concerns about political interference and the dismissal of elected State Governments. The role of the Governor is also important because the Governor may report to the President that a constitutional breakdown has occurred in a State.

The committees and commissions discussed below recommended safeguards (measures to prevent misuse of power), clearer guidelines for Governors and greater respect for the authority of elected State Governments.

Major Committees and Commissions

Administrative Reforms Commission

The Administrative Reforms Commission (1968) examined the role of Governors in reporting situations that might justify President's Rule.

Major recommendations

• Objective reports by Governors: A Governor's report should be based on facts and the Governor's own assessment. The Governor should not simply repeat the views of the State Council of Ministers or the Union Government.
• Independent judgement: The Governor should exercise independent judgement when deciding whether a situation requires the President's intervention under Article 356.
• Administration during President's Rule: When President's Rule is imposed, the Governor may be entrusted with the responsibility of administering the State under the overall direction of the Union Government.

These recommendations sought to ensure that the Governor acted responsibly and independently while reporting a possible breakdown of constitutional government.

Governors' Committee

In 1971, President V. V. Giri established a Governors' Committee under Bhagwan Sahay, the then Governor of Jammu and Kashmir. Gopal Reddy, Ali Yavar Jung and S. S. Dhawan were its other members.

The Committee examined the responsibilities of Governors and the principles that should guide their actions.

Major recommendations

• Preventing administrative breakdown: The Governor should ensure that political instability does not cause the State administration to stop functioning.
• Protecting responsible government: At the same time, the Governor should ensure that an elected government is not removed or replaced without sufficient reason.
• Regular reports: The Governor should send regular reports on the political situation in the State.
• Reporting serious threats: The Governor should inform the President about serious internal disturbances or external aggression when these may require constitutional action under Article 356.
• Independent judgement: The Governor should act according to their best judgement, guided by established principles and the need to preserve constitutional government.

The Governors' Conference discussed the Committee's report in New Delhi on 26 November 1971. However, the proposal to issue formal instructions to Governors was withdrawn.

The Committee highlighted the need to balance two responsibilities: preventing the breakdown of State administration and protecting an elected government from unjustified interference.

Rajamannar Committee

The Tamil Nadu Government, led by Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi, established the Centre-State Relations Inquiry Committee on 2 September 1969. It was chaired by P. V. Rajamannar, a former Chief Justice of the Madras High Court. The Committee submitted its report in 1971.

Its main objective was to strengthen State autonomy and prevent the misuse of Union powers.

Major recommendations

• Deletion of Articles 356 and 357: The Committee recommended removing these provisions from the Constitution. Alternatively, it proposed constitutional safeguards to protect States against arbitrary action by the Union Government.
• Constitutional role of the Governor: The Governor should act as the constitutional head of the State and should not consider themselves merely an agent of the Union Government.
• Security of the State Ministry: A State Ministry should continue in office as long as it commands the confidence of the Legislative Assembly. Its continuation should not depend simply on the Governor's pleasure.
• Restriction on Article 356: If Article 356 were retained, the words "or otherwise" in Article 356(1) should be removed to restrict the grounds on which President's Rule could be imposed.
• Exploring alternative governments: Before recommending President's Rule, the Governor should explore every reasonable possibility of forming a government that enjoys majority support in the Legislative Assembly.
• Role of the Legislative Assembly: The Assembly should be the proper forum for deciding whether a Ministry continues to enjoy majority support. The Committee also proposed that the Governor's report should be referred to the Assembly for its views within a specified period before a proclamation was issued.
• Failure to follow Union directions: The Committee opposed using a State's failure to comply with a Union direction as a ground for imposing President's Rule. It therefore recommended repealing Article 365, which deals with the effect of a State's failure to comply with certain Union directions.
• Limits on the grounds for President's Rule: The Committee considered a complete breakdown of law and order in a State to be a circumstance that could justify President's Rule, while emphasising that alternative governments should first be explored.

The Rajamannar Committee strongly supported State autonomy and sought substantial limits on the Union Government's power to intervene in State administration. Its recommendations were not accepted as a complete package by the Union Government, partly because several proposals were considered too far-reaching.

Sarkaria Commission

The Union Government established the Sarkaria Commission on 24 March 1983 under Justice R. S. Sarkaria. B. Sivaraman and S. R. Sen were its other members. The Commission submitted its report on 30 June 1988.

It examined concerns about the misuse of Article 356 and considered how the Union could protect constitutional government without unnecessarily interfering in the affairs of States.

Major recommendations

• Article 356 as a last resort: President's Rule should be imposed only in exceptional circumstances, after all other available options have failed.
• Warning to the State Government: Before imposing President's Rule, the Union should normally warn the State Government that it is not functioning in accordance with the Constitution. The State should be given an opportunity to correct the situation. This may not be possible when immediate action is necessary to prevent serious consequences.
• Use of Article 355: Where external aggression or internal disturbance threatens the functioning of a State, the Union should first explore available measures under Article 355 to protect the State and ensure that its government functions according to the Constitution.
• Formation of an alternative government: If a government loses majority support, the Governor should explore all possibilities of forming another government that commands the confidence of the Assembly.
• Caretaker government: If no alternative government can be formed and fresh elections can be held without unnecessary delay, the outgoing Ministry may be asked to continue as a caretaker government.
• Approval by Parliament: Every proclamation of President's Rule should be placed before both Houses of Parliament as early as possible and before the expiry of the two-month period prescribed by Article 356(3).
• Protection of the Assembly: The State Legislative Assembly should not be dissolved before the proclamation has been placed before Parliament and Parliament has had an opportunity to consider it.
• Parliamentary review: The Commission recommended safeguards similar to those under Article 352 to allow Parliament to review whether a proclamation should continue.
• Clear reasons for President's Rule: The material facts and reasons for invoking Article 356 should form part of the proclamation.
• Detailed Governor's report: The Governor's report should be a speaking document (a document that clearly states the relevant facts and reasons supporting a decision). It should contain enough information for Parliament to examine the basis for President's Rule.
• Public access to the report: The Governor's report supporting President's Rule should normally be made available to the public through the media.
• Use of the Governor's report: In normal circumstances, President's Rule should be proclaimed on the basis of the Governor's report under Article 356.
• Amendment to Article 356(5): The Commission recommended replacing the word "and" with "or" between clauses (a) and (b) of Article 356(5), concerning the conditions for extending President's Rule beyond one year.

The Sarkaria Commission did not recommend abolishing Article 356. Instead, it sought to prevent misuse through clear procedures, warnings, parliamentary oversight and the use of President's Rule only as a last resort.

National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution

The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC), also known as the Venkatachaliah Commission, was established in 2000 under the chairmanship of Justice M. N. Venkatachaliah. It submitted its report in 2002.

The Commission reviewed constitutional functioning and made further recommendations concerning Article 356, the Governor's role and the protection of elected State Governments.

Major recommendations

• Limited use of Article 356: President's Rule should be used sparingly and only as a last resort, after considering measures available under Articles 256, 257 and 355.
• Opportunity to the State Government: Before issuing a proclamation under Article 356, the State Government should normally be given an opportunity to explain its position and correct the situation. This requirement may be set aside when urgent action is necessary to protect State security or national defence, or for other compelling reasons.
• Floor test for majority support: Whether a State Ministry has lost the confidence of the Legislative Assembly should be decided on the floor of the Assembly, not by the Governor acting alone.
• Protection of a Ministry with majority support: The Governor should not dismiss a Ministry while it continues to enjoy the confidence of the Assembly. If the Ministry loses a no-confidence vote and the Chief Minister refuses to resign, the Governor may dismiss the government.
• Caretaker government and fresh elections: If no alternative government can be formed, the outgoing Ministry may continue as a caretaker government when fresh elections can be held without unnecessary delay, subject to the conditions recommended by the Commission.
• Constructive vote of no-confidence: The Commission supported the idea of a constructive vote of no-confidence (a vote that removes the existing government only when the Assembly also agrees on a replacement leader). This was intended to reduce political instability caused by removing a government without establishing an alternative.
• Detailed Governor's report: In normal circumstances, President's Rule should be based on the Governor's report, which should clearly state all important facts and reasons.
• Amendment to Article 356(5): The Commission recommended changing "and" to "or" in the relevant part of Article 356(5), so that President's Rule could continue where elections could not be held, subject to the constitutional requirements.
• Parliamentary control over continuation: It proposed adding provisions to Article 356 requiring the President to revoke a proclamation if the Lok Sabha passed a resolution disapproving it or its continuation. It also proposed a special sitting of the Lok Sabha within fourteen days when a written notice signed by at least one-tenth of its total membership sought such a resolution.
• Protection against early dissolution: The Commission recommended that the State Legislative Assembly should not be dissolved before the proclamation of President's Rule had been placed before Parliament and Parliament had an opportunity to consider it.

The NCRWC continued the effort to establish safeguards against the misuse of Article 356. Its recommendations emphasised majority support in the Assembly, opportunities for the State to respond and parliamentary control over President's Rule.

Comparison of the Recommendations

Important Constitutional Provisions

The recommendations of these committees and commissions relate to the following provisions of the Constitution of India:

• Article 355: Places a duty on the Union to protect States against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that State Governments are carried on in accordance with the Constitution.
• Article 356: Allows President's Rule when the government of a State cannot be carried on in accordance with the Constitution.
• Article 357: Deals with the exercise of legislative powers during President's Rule.
• Article 365: Deals with the consequences of a State failing to comply with certain directions given by the Union under the Constitution.
• Article 352: Deals with the proclamation of a national emergency. The Sarkaria Commission recommended similar parliamentary safeguards for Article 356.
• Articles 256 and 257: Concern the obligation of States to comply with certain Union laws and directions, and the Union's control over States in specified matters.

These provisions demonstrate the constitutional balance between the Union's duty to protect constitutional government and the States' right to function through their elected governments.

Important Case Law

S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

In S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court of India examined the use of Article 356 and established important limits on the Union Government's power to dismiss State Governments.

Key principles

• The use of Article 356 is subject to judicial review (the power of courts to examine whether government action is lawful).
• A proclamation of President's Rule cannot be treated as an unrestricted political power.
• Where the question is whether a State Ministry enjoys majority support, that question should ordinarily be decided on the floor of the Legislative Assembly.
• The dissolution of a State Legislative Assembly should not be treated as an automatic consequence of issuing a proclamation under Article 356 before Parliament has approved it.
• The Union Government must act within constitutional limits when imposing President's Rule.

The judgment gave legal force to important principles that had been advocated by commissions, particularly the need to limit the use of Article 356 and protect elected State Governments.

Practical Example

Suppose a State Government is facing political disagreement, and the Governor claims that the Ministry has lost its majority.

The Governor should not automatically recommend President's Rule based only on political claims. The principles recommended by the Sarkaria Commission and NCRWC require the Governor to explore whether an alternative government can be formed and, where necessary, establish majority support through a floor test in the Legislative Assembly.

If the State Government has lost its majority, but another government can be formed, that alternative should be considered before imposing President's Rule. If no workable alternative exists and the constitutional machinery has broken down, Article 356 may be considered, subject to its constitutional requirements and parliamentary approval.

This example shows how the recommendations seek to protect both constitutional government and the democratic authority of elected State Legislatures.

Summary

• The Administrative Reforms Commission (1968) recommended that Governors should send objective reports and exercise independent judgement when considering whether President's Rule is necessary.
• The Governors' Committee (1971) stressed the need to prevent administrative breakdown while protecting responsible government in the States.
• The Rajamannar Committee (1971) strongly favoured State autonomy and recommended deleting Articles 356 and 357, along with other measures to limit Union intervention.
• The Sarkaria Commission (1988) recommended using Article 356 only as a last resort, issuing warnings to State Governments where possible, exploring alternative governments and strengthening parliamentary oversight.
• The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2002) supported limited use of Article 356, floor tests, opportunities for State Governments to respond and stronger parliamentary safeguards.
• The Supreme Court's decision in S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) established important legal limits on the use of Article 356 and strengthened the protection of elected State Governments.
• The central principle running through these recommendations is that President's Rule must remain an exceptional constitutional measure, not a tool for ordinary political disagreement.