DAW 23rd February 2026, Mains Answer Writting 2027
Question
What changes has the Union Government recently introduced in the domain of Centre-State relations? Suggest measures to be adopted to build the trust between the Centre and the States and for strengthening federalism. (15 marks).
Model Answer
Approach:
Introduction (2–3 lines)
Briefly mention that Centre-State relations are core to India’s federal structure and are constitutionally defined under Parts XI and XII.
Highlight that recent fiscal, administrative, and policy changes have intensified debates on centralisation versus cooperative federalism.
Body
Outline key changes such as GST, Finance Commission recommendations, and increasing centralisation in policy and administration.
Add a critical assessment of their impact on State autonomy.
Briefly suggest way forward measures like strengthening institutions, fiscal federalism, and cooperative governance.
Conclusion
Conclude by emphasising the need to balance national unity with regional autonomy.
Mention strengthening trust and cooperative federalism is essential for sustaining India’s democratic and constitutional framework.
Introduction
Centre-State relations are central to India’s federal structure, ensuring balance between unity and regional diversity. The Constitution (Part XI & XII) lays down legislative, administrative, and financial relations, but these are continuously evolving. In recent years, developments such as GST reforms, 15th Finance Commission recommendations, centralisation trends, and policy conflicts have intensified debates on cooperative federalism and fiscal autonomy.
Body
Changes in Centre-State Relations
1. Fiscal Changes and Financial Centralisation
The recent Kurian Joseph Report has emphasised that fiscal arrangements such as GST have tilted financial power towards the Centre.
The 15th Finance Commission reduced the States’ share in the divisible tax pool from 42% to 41%, citing fiscal constraints and the reorganisation of Jammu & Kashmir.
The GST regime has subsumed major State taxes, thereby limiting independent taxation powers and increasing reliance on the GST Council.
The increasing use of cesses and surcharges by the Union, which are not shareable with States, has further reduced effective devolution.
2. Administrative and Institutional Changes
Amendments to the All-India Services rules have enhanced the Centre’s role in deputation of officers, thereby affecting State control over bureaucracy.
For example, as many as nine states have expressed concerns over unilateral deputation policies.
The role of Governors has increasingly become contentious, particularly in matters such as delaying assent to Bills or influencing legislative processes. The recent Kurian Joseph Report has also highlighted that Governors are increasingly perceived as instruments of Union influence in State governance.
For instance, delays in granting assent to State Bills in Tamil Nadu have triggered constitutional debates.
3. Policy and Legislative Centralisation
There has been a growing trend of central intervention in State List subjects, such as agriculture, education, and health.
For example, the farm laws (now repealed) were criticised by States like Punjab and Haryana as encroachment into agriculture, a state subject.
The expansion of Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS) has required States to share financial burdens while limiting flexibility in design.
For instance, schemes like PMAY require State contributions, constraining fiscal choices.
The Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) system has centralised welfare delivery, reducing States’ role in beneficiary identification and implementation.
4. Structural and Political Developments
The Joseph Report has highlighted that the ease of constitutional amendments has facilitated gradual centralisation of power.
The reorganisation of Jammu & Kashmir into Union Territories (2019) has reflected the Centre’s extensive constitutional powers over State boundaries.
The proposal of “One Nation, One Election” has raised concerns among States regarding its impact on federal autonomy and political accountability.
The upcoming delimitation exercise has created anxiety among southern States, which fear reduced representation despite better population control.
Critical Assessment
The Joseph Committee has observed that centralisation has increased over time and poses risks to federal democracy.
These changes have improved national coordination, uniformity in taxation, and crisis management, especially during events such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
However, they have also contributed to the erosion of fiscal and administrative autonomy of States, increasing their dependence on the Union.
The trend reflects a shift from cooperative federalism to a more centralised or “top-down” model of governance.
The lack of institutionalised consultation mechanisms has led to policy conflicts, as seen in farm laws and GST-related disputes.
As federalism is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, excessive centralisation may weaken democratic pluralism and regional responsiveness.
Way Forward
1. Strengthening Institutional Mechanisms
The Inter-State Council should be revived and institutionalised as a regular forum for dialogue and dispute resolution.
Recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission has also emphasised its role in promoting cooperative federalism.
2. Enhancing Fiscal Federalism
The Union should ensure timely GST compensation and transparent fiscal transfers to States.
The use of cesses and surcharges should be rationalised to increase the divisible pool of taxes.
3. Promoting Cooperative Governance
States should be actively involved in policy formulation at the initial stage, rather than being consulted post facto.
For instance, greater State participation in NITI Aayog initiatives like the Aspirational District Programme can enhance ownership.
4. Safeguarding State Autonomy
The Union should respect constitutional boundaries and avoid encroachment into State List subjects.
For example, agricultural reforms should be undertaken in consultation with States to ensure legitimacy and effectiveness.
5. Reforming the Role of Governors
The appointment and functioning of Governors should be guided by clear norms to ensure neutrality and constitutional propriety.
The Punchhi Commission recommended fixed tenure and removal safeguards to prevent misuse of office.
6. Strengthening Decentralisation
Greater devolution of funds, functions, and functionaries to Panchayati Raj Institutions and Urban Local Bodies should be ensured.
This would deepen federalism at the grassroots level and reduce Centre-State tensions.
7. Structural Reset of Federalism
As suggested by the Kurian Joseph Committee, India requires a structural reset to restore balance between central authority and State autonomy.
Federalism should be recognised as a guarantee of unity and diversity, not a constraint on national strength.
Conclusion
India’s federal system must continuously evolve to balance the need for national coordination with regional autonomy. While recent changes have strengthened the Centre’s role, they also highlight the risks of over-centralisation. A cooperative, consultative, and trust-based federal framework is essential to ensure that India remains strong not despite its diversity, but because of it.