The Sarkaria Commission

-

 The Sarkaria Commission was established in 1983 by the Government of India to review Centre-State relations and recommend measures to improve federal governance. It was chaired by Justice R. S. Sarkaria, a retired Supreme Court judge.

Key Objectives

  • Assess the distribution of powers, functions, and responsibilities between the Centre and States.

  • Recommend reforms to ensure better coordination and cooperation.

  • Address concerns related to governors’ discretionary powers and the use of Article 356.

Major Recommendations

  1. Restraint in Using Article 356

    • Suggested that President’s Rule should be imposed only as a last resort.

    • Recommended issuing warnings before invoking Article 356.

  2. Strengthening Fiscal Federalism

    • Advocated for greater financial autonomy for states.

    • Recommended fairer revenue-sharing mechanisms.

  3. Governor’s Role

    • Suggested that Governors should be impartial and not act as agents of the Centre.

    • Proposed consultation with Chief Ministers before appointing Governors.

  4. Inter-State Council

    • Recommended to establish a permanent Inter-State Council to foster dialogue between the Centre and States.

The Sarkaria Commission played a crucial role in shaping cooperative federalism in India.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is the Sanctity of Parliamentary Debate, Which Lies at the Core of Democratic Decision-Making, Being Compromised?

-
From the historical view where the core of parliamentary debates was based on public welfare, the utilitarianism principle where every individual was very much aware of being responsible for his/her words towards the public, their actions and reactions were under the basic rule. The decorum of parliament was maintained and the politicians were public servants thinking of a collective decision where the core value was to take a step in the public welfare way. Thinking of that era when like-minded people were making decisions for a common vision that was devoted to a well-developed nation as a whole. But if we talk about today's debates they sound to be senseless.   Fighting with the elders, breaking public property, unethical slogans, and quotations to put-down the individual's public and private image is not at all the act of the responsible member of parliament. The core value is dying with the baseless debates where logical thinking and analytical norms are missing. There wa...
Read more

‘India had parliamentary institutions when people of Europe were mere nomads’

-
Image
The quote by  Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, "India had parliamentary institutions when people of Europe were mere nomads,"  is a powerful testament to the ancient civilization's early advancements in governance and societal structures. It speaks volumes about the historical context of India's political systems, which were far more developed than often recognized in the common Eurocentric narrative of history. This essay will delve into the implications of Ambedkar's statement, exploring its historical accuracy, its significance in the context of Indian pride and identity, and its relevance in contemporary discussions about the origins and evolution of democratic institutions. Firstly, various historical records and scholarly research support the assertion that India had parliamentary institutions in ancient times. The 'sabha' and 'samiti' of the Vedic period, for instance, are indicative of consultative assemblies that played a role in governance. These bodie...
Read more

Dr. D.C. Wadhwa & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. case of 1986

-
 The Dr. D.C. Wadhwa & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. case of 1986 is a cornerstone in the Indian judicial history, highlighting the delicate balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of government . The case stemmed from a practice that had become routine for the Bihar government: the re-promulgation of ordinances without legislative approval, a process that Dr. D.C. Wadhwa, an economics professor, found to be a subversion of democratic principles . The Supreme Court's decision in this case was a resounding affirmation of constitutional law and its supremacy over executive convenience. By declaring the practice of re-promulgating ordinances without legislative consent as unconstitutional, the court reinforced the necessity of legislative scrutiny and the impermanence of ordinances, which are meant to be emergency measures, not a backdoor for enacting laws. This landmark judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of checks and balances within ...
Read more