💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (August Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: Federalism

  • Presidential Reference on Governors & State Bills (2025)

     Why in the news?
     Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, on November 23, 2025, clarified the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion in the 2025 Presidential Reference regarding timelines for Governors and the President in granting assent to State Bills.

    What is a Presidential Reference?

    • Made under Article 143 of the Constitution.
    • The President can seek the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court on questions of law or matters of public importance.
    • Not binding, but carries high persuasive value.
    • Cannot overrule an existing judgment, but can clarify the law.

    CJI Gavai emphasised that the advisory opinion is not a judicial review judgment.

    Background: 

    Tamil Nadu Governor Case (April 8 Judgment) The April 8, 2025 Supreme Court judgment held:
    • Governors/President must act on pending Bills within 3 months,
    • Or else the Bill would be “deemed to have received assent”.

    This introduced a judicially created timeline not explicitly present in the Constitution. This triggered the Presidential Reference seeking clarity.

    Supreme Court’s Advisory Opinion (November 20, 2025)

    A five-judge Bench led by CJI Gavai issued the following clarifications:

    a) No Mandatory Timeline: The Constitution does not prescribe specific timelines for Governors or the President. Judiciary cannot read timelines into the Constitution.

    b) “Reasonable Period” Standard: Governors and President must act within a “reasonable period”. However, the Court did not define what constitutes “reasonable”.

    c) No Endless Delay: Governors cannot sit indefinitely on Bills. Courts may exercise limited judicial review in extreme delay cases.

    d) Context Matters: Routine Bills → 1 month may be reasonable. Bills related to internal/external emergency → may require more time.

    Key Constitutional Provisions Involved

    Article 200 – Governor’s options on State Bills
    1. Give assent
    2. Withhold assent
    3. Return the Bill (if not a Money Bill)
    4. Reserve the Bill for President’s consideration
    Article 201 – President’s powers over reserved Bills
    • Grant or withhold assent
    • No fixed timeline prescribed
    Article 143 – Presidential Reference
    • Supreme Court gives advisory opinion

    Why is this Important for UPSC Prelims?

    This case clarifies the separation of powers, federalism, and the role of constitutional authorities.

    Prelims often tests:

    • Powers of Governor
    • Assent procedures for Bills
    • Nature of advisory jurisdiction
    • Limits of judicial interpretation

    Other Key Statements by CJI Gavai (Factual Highlights)

    a) Advisory Opinion vs Judgment: Advisory opinion cannot overturn a judgment.

    b) Judiciary–Executive Relations: CJI rejected the idea that “friction” is necessary between judiciary and government.

    c) Judicial Independence: A judge’s independence is not measured by ruling against the government.

    d) High Court Judge Transfers: Transfers made for administrative reasons and sometimes due to complaints after verification.

    e) Personal Note: CJI forgave a lawyer who threw an object at him: “It’s how I was brought up.”

    Which of the following are the discretionary powers given to the Governor of a State? (PYQ 2014)

    1. Sending a report to the President of India for imposing the President’s rule 

    2. Appointing the Ministers 

    3. Reserving certain bills passed by the State Legislature for consideration of the President of India 

    4. Making the rules to conduct the business of the State Government 

    Select the correct answer using the code given below: 

    (a) 1 and 2 only 

    (b) 1 and 3 only 

    (c) 2, 3 and 4 only 

    (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4

  • Is federalism in retreat under single party hegemony?

    INTRODUCTION

    The rationalisation of GST ushered in a new era of indirect taxation but triggered concerns among several States regarding declining revenue autonomy. Disputes around compensation, centrally-sponsored schemes, disaster relief funding, and Finance Commission recommendations have reached the Supreme Court, raising a fundamental question: Is Indian federalism being structurally reshaped under a single-party political hegemony?

    The conversation in the article traces how fiscal and political federalism has shifted from cooperative frameworks in the 1990s to competitive and increasingly centralised dynamics post-2014.

    WHY IN THE NEWS

    The article is significant because it captures the unprecedented stress on fiscal federalism under GST, the decline of traditional accommodation politics, and the growing disconnect between richer southern States and the Union’s redistributive design. For the first time since liberalisation, States across the political spectrum are questioning the vertical imbalance and the shrinking autonomy embedded in taxation, grants, and centrally sponsored schemes. The issue is compelling because these structural tensions coincide with the rise of a dominant national party, altering how bargaining, negotiation, and regional representation historically shaped Indian federalism.

    Shifts in Federalism: From Accommodation to Assertion

    1. Federal Coalition Politics: Provided space for regional parties to influence national policy in the 1990s; reforms had federal character, and Centre-State interaction increased.
    2. Decline of Accommodation: Rise of single-party majority reduced negotiation; regional anxieties and political identities feel less represented.
    3. BJP’s Unitary Political Vision: Emphasises uniformity over accommodation, reducing incentives for coalition-based bargaining.

    How Has GST Altered the Fiscal Architecture?

    1. Loss of Tax Autonomy: States surrendered sovereign taxation power; they now depend on shared revenues and compensation.
    2. Compensation Tensions: Delays triggered mistrust; design issues, particularly Finance Commission-linked vertical imbalance, create sustained stress.
    3. Redistributive Principle: Southern States argue that redistributive transfers have become structurally rigid without acknowledging their economic efficiency.

    What Is Driving Regional Inequality and Fiscal Stress?

    1. Unequal Growth Patterns: Southern States showed high economic growth but lack employment-intensive outcomes; inequality persists.
    2. Structural Vertical Imbalance: Centre retains key taxation powers while States bear expenditure responsibilities; this misalignment fuels fiscal dissatisfaction.
    3. Urbanisation and Labour Migration: Remittances from poorer northern States sustain the growth of southern economies, deepening interdependence yet also friction.

    How Has Single-Party Dominance Reshaped Political Federalism?

    1. Reduced Federal Bargains: With weaker regional representation at the Centre, the cooperative ethos has weakened.
    2. Rise of Central Schemes: States perceive centralisation in scheme design, financing patterns, and conditionalities.
    3. Executive Federalism: More meetings, consultations, and vertical controls replacing political negotiation platforms like the Planning Commission.

    Why Are Delimitation and Census Triggering Concerns?

    1. Southern States’ Anxiety: Fear losing political weight due to lower population growth relative to northern States.
    2. Economic Contribution vs Representation: High-growth States feel the political architecture does not reward efficient governance.
    3. One Nation, One Election Debate: Seen as another centralising push, weakening federal political competition.

    CONCLUSION

    The article concludes that the crisis in Indian federalism is not merely episodic but structural, rooted in post-GST fiscal architecture, weakened accommodation politics, regional disparities, and the rise of a dominant national party. The challenge is to redesign mechanisms of trust, negotiation, and fiscal balance so that India’s federal compact remains resilient to political shocks and centred on cooperative problem-solving.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2024] 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.

    Linkage: This PYQ directly aligns with the article’s core themes of growing centralisation, GST-driven fiscal stress, and weakening accommodation politics between the Centre and States. It links perfectly with the discussion on fiscal imbalance, GST Council tensions, Finance Commission changes, and the impact of single-party dominance on federal bargaining.

  • SC advisory on Presidential Reference on Governors’ timelines

    Why In The News?

    The Supreme Court will issue an advisory opinion on a Presidential Reference questioning its authority to impose timelines and prescribe procedures for Governors and the President when handling State Bills sent for assent or consideration.

    1) About the Judgement:

    • Scheduled Advisory Opinion: The Supreme Court is set to deliver its advisory opinion on a Presidential Reference questioning whether the Court can impose timelines and procedures for Governors and the President when dealing with State Bills.
    • Bench’s Position: The five-judge Bench led by CJI B.R. Gavai held that the Court cannot remain inactive if a constitutional authority fails to perform its duties.
    • Political–Federal Context: The matter arises amid friction between Opposition-ruled States and Governors, with delays in assenting to key State legislation.
    • April 8 Judgment Trigger: The reference stems from the Supreme Court’s April 8 judgment that imposed a three-month deadline on Governors and the President to act on Bills.
    • Impact on Governance: The Court ruled that Governors cannot impede governance by indefinitely withholding action on welfare legislation.
    • Union Government’s Objection: The Centre argued that the April 8 ruling creates a “one-size-fits-all” approach that may be inappropriate given the varied nature of Bills.
    • Argument on Judicial Overreach: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended that the Court cannot assume legislative functions by compelling Governors to grant assent through mandamus.

    2) Presidential Reference Under Article 143:

    • Meaning and Scope: Article 143 allows the President to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance.
    • Article 143(1) – Optional Opinion: The Supreme Court may accept or decline to answer references under this clause. Example: refusal in the 1993 Ram Janmabhoomi reference.
    • Article 143(2) – Mandatory Opinion: For disputes involving pre-Constitution treaties or agreements, the Court must render its opinion.
    • Nature of Advice: The advisory opinion is not binding on the President but carries significant legal authority.
    • Bench Requirement: Article 145(3) mandates that a minimum five-judge Bench must hear Presidential References.
    • Historical Origins: The power originates from the Government of India Act, 1935. Comparative jurisdictions: Canada accepts advisory opinions; the U.S. does not.
    • Past References: About 15 previous references include the Delhi Laws Act (1951), Kerala Education Bill (1958), Berubari (1960), Keshav Singh (1965), Presidential Poll case (1974), Third Judges Case (1998).
    • Key Question in Present Reference: Whether courts can impose timelines on Governors/President that are not expressly provided in Articles 200 and 201, and whether Article 142 enables the Court to frame such directions.
    • Limit on Overturning Judgments: As held in the 1991 Cauvery decision, Article 143 cannot be used to review or overturn settled Supreme Court judgments.
    • Constitutional Significance: The reference may clarify the constitutional roles of the President/Governors, promote federal balance, and remove procedural ambiguities.
    • Challenges of the Advisory Process: Advice is nonbinding, references may become politicized, “public importance” is undefined, and there is no timeline for the Court to respond.

    3) Relevant Constitutional Provisions & Case Law on Governors’ Powers to reserve state bills:

    • Article 200 – Governor’s Options: The Governor may assent, withhold assent with reasons, return a non-Money Bill once, or reserve the Bill for the President. Upon reconsideration and re-passage, the Governor must assent.
    • Article 201 – President’s Options: The President may assent, withhold assent, or return a non-Money Bill; unlike the Governor, the President is not bound even if the Bill is re-passed.
    • No Absolute or Pocket Veto: The Supreme Court held in the 2023 Tamil Nadu case that Governors cannot exercise a pocket veto; “as soon as possible” implies reasonable promptness.
    • Restriction on Reserving Bills: After a Bill is re-passed without amendments, the Governor must assent; it cannot be reserved again unless the content has changed.
    • Aid and Advice Principle: The Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers except in limited situations concerning High Court or Supreme Court powers.
    • Judicial Timelines and Reviewability: The Supreme Court imposed definitive timelines for Governor’s action under Article 200 and held that inaction is subject to judicial review.
    [UPSC 2012] Question: Which of the following are the discretionary powers given to the Governor of a State?

    1. Sending a report to the President of India for imposing the President’s rule

    2. Appointing the Ministers

    3. Reserving certain bills passed by the State Legislature for consideration of the President of India

    4. Making the rules to conduct the business of the State Government

    Select the correct answer using the code given below: Options: (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 1 and 3 only* (c) 2, 3 and 4 only (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4

     

  • [13th November 2025] The Hindu Op-ED: Inter-State rivalry that is fuelling India’s growth

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2020] How far do you think cooperation, competition and confrontation have shaped the nature of federation in India? Cite some recent examples to validate your answer.

    Linkage: The article highlights how State-level competition for investment is reshaping India’s federal structure into a more dynamic, State-driven model. This directly reflects the PYQ’s focus on competition and its role in shaping Indian federalism.

    Mentor’s Comment

    Inter-State competition in India, once viewed as divisive, is now emerging as one of the strongest drivers of economic growth, investment attraction, administrative efficiency, and innovation. This article breaks down why this shift is historically significant, how it is unfolding across States, and what it means for federalism and India’s long-term development trajectory. 

    Why In The News

    India is witnessing an unprecedented rise in competitive federalism, where States actively race to attract global and domestic investments, from Google’s new AI centre to semiconductor plants and EV manufacturing. For the first time in decades, State governments, not Delhi’s ministries, are driving India’s economic location decisions. States now pitch aggressively to CEOs, negotiate incentives, and showcase governance models. This marks a sharp contrast with pre-1991 India’s centralised industrial licensing regime, where Delhi decided who could produce, how much, and where. Today, State-led rivalry has matured into a credible, stable, rules-based competition that is fuelling India’s growth story.

    Introduction

    India’s economic geography is being reshaped by a transformation from centrally orchestrated industrial policy to a system where States compete for investment based on infrastructure, governance quality, policy stability, and business confidence. This shift is strengthening India’s federal structure, enhancing innovation, and raising the overall quality of economic outcomes. Inter-State rivalry, far from fragmenting the Union, is forming a mosaic of distinct strengths that collectively widens national opportunities.

    How has India moved from central patronage to competitive federalism?

    1. Command-economy restrictions: Earlier, industrial licences, permits, and quotas concentrated power in Delhi; the Centre decided production, capacity, and investment location.
    2. Dismantling of industrial licensing (1991): Reforms shifted economic decisions from Delhi to States, enabling States to attract investors by improving infrastructure, governance, and policy stability.
    3. Decline of political patronage: States now court industries directly instead of relying on Central ministries; competition incentivises better reforms.
    4. Rise of State-led economic diplomacy: States engage corporate boards and CEOs with confidence, signalling maturity in India’s federal design.

    What is driving the new wave of inter-State competition?

    1. Investment race for global tech mandates: Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Karnataka compete for Google’s AI centre, semiconductor units like Micron, and other high-tech industries.
    2. Policy predictability: States offer faster clearances, stable taxation, and improved land/utility arrangements that improve investor confidence.
    3. Infrastructure differentiation: Gujarat’s infrastructure, Maharashtra’s port ecosystem, and Jharkhand’s mineral base reflect unique competitive edges.
    4. Branding and entrepreneurship cultures: Punjab’s business culture, Tamil Nadu’s skilled workforce, and Bengaluru’s innovation ecosystem attract capital.
    5. Healthy rivalry: States emulate each other’s best practices, improving ease of doing business holistically.

    How do States showcase competitive strengths to attract global investors?

    1. Clearances and governance: Andhra’s faster approvals and “predictable governance” models attract industries.
    2. Industrial clusters: Noida’s semiconductor parks, Tamil Nadu’s EV manufacturing corridors, and Karnataka’s global capability centres create ecosystems.
    3. Strategic subsidies: Concessional utilities, land pricing, and tax benefits remain tools, but the article emphasises that strength now lies in governance and capability, not only subsidies.
    4. Narrative-building: States brand themselves:
      1. “The Shenzhen of India” for Noida,
      2. “India in the abstract; India in Bengaluru; India in Bhubaneswar” reflects competitive positioning.
    5. Multiple entry points: India’s mosaic of distinct State strengths creates a wide front of opportunities for global investors.

    How does inter-State rivalry improve national economic outcomes?

    1. Enhanced innovation: Competition fosters experimentation and adoption of best practices.
    2. Reduced dependency on Centre: States take responsibility for attracting investment rather than waiting for Central allocations.
    3. Better infrastructure standards: Rivalry pushes States to upgrade logistics, industrial parks, and digital infrastructure.
    4. Industry diversification: Multiple states develop high-tech clusters, reducing geographic concentration risks.
    5. Federal solidarity: The article stresses that competition is healthy, credible, and rooted in a shared pursuit of national development.

    Why is the new federal compact significant for India’s future?

    1. States pitching confidently: States engage investors directly with clear plans, showing a shift to persuasion-based federalism.
    2. Attracting sunrise sectors: Semiconductor manufacturing, EV production, and advanced electronics are expanding beyond traditional hubs.
    3. Cross-State synergies: Supply chains, manufacturing networks, and services ecosystems now span across borders.
    4. Mature economic federalism: The article argues this is not desperate bidding, but a rational, capability-driven economic design.
    5. Rise of State-led growth poles: Competitive strengths in different States collectively strengthen India’s global economic position.

    Conclusion

    India’s evolving economic federalism represents a deeper structural shift where States act as active economic agents rather than passive recipients of Central policy. This inter-State rivalry, credible, stable, and innovation-driven, is pushing India toward higher-quality investments, diversified regional growth, and improved governance. It is a long-term transformation that reinforces India’s economic resilience and strengthens the Union through productive competition.

  • A nationwide SIR

    Introduction

    India’s Election Commission (ECI) has launched the Special Intensive Revision (SIR 2.0) of electoral rolls to address a persistent issue, duplicate and multiple voter entries across constituencies and states. As the electoral roll forms the foundation of Indian democracy, its accuracy directly determines the legitimacy of elections. The initiative represents a nationwide, paperless, tech-driven approach that seeks to align the voter database with digital verification systems, ensuring that every vote counts once and only once.

    Understanding the SIR and its Objective

    1. Definition: The Special Intensive Revision (SIR), under the Representation of the People (RPA) Act, 1950, aims to ensure the integrity of electoral rolls and prevent duplication and impersonation.
    2. Objective: To update, verify, and purify the voter database by leveraging technology, interlinked databases, and field-level verification.
    3. Legal Basis: Under Section 22 and 23 of the RPA, 1950, corrections, deletions, and transfers of voter entries are authorized to maintain roll accuracy.
    4. Context: This follows recent legal scrutiny and concerns raised after instances of double voting and duplicate EPIC numbers across states.

    Why Duplicate Entries Are a Major Concern

    1. Erosion of Electoral Integrity: Duplicate or multiple entries lead to bogus voting, undermining free and fair elections.
    2. Systemic Weakness: Failures in linking EPIC (Elector Photo Identity Card) data and inter-state coordination have enabled repeated entries.
    3. Case Example: In Prashant Kishor’s case, the same EPIC number was found in two constituencies, revealing system-level flaws.
    4. Administrative Burden: Duplicate entries strain the ECI’s verification apparatus, consuming time, manpower, and digital resources.
    5. Loss of Public Confidence: Recurring discrepancies in electoral lists weaken voter faith in institutional fairness and neutrality.

    How the Electoral Roll is Being Purified

    1. Tech Integration: The Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) use National Voters’ Service Portal (NVSP), AI-driven duplicate detection, and data cross-verification through NIC and CDAC systems.
    2. Field-Level Verification: Enumerators conduct doorstep distribution and validation of forms to identify discrepancies.
    3. Automated Detection: Use of Common Photo Identity Card (EPIC) data and facial/ID match algorithms ensures high accuracy in identifying duplication.
    4. Legal Safeguards: Voters are given an opportunity to rectify records within six months under the law before deletion.
    5. Accountability Mechanism: EROs are held responsible for false deletion or oversight in duplication verification.

    How Technology is Transforming Voter Verification

    1. Digital Synchronization: SIR 2.0 uses centralized databases for unified record-keeping across states.
    2. EPIC-Database Linkage: Integration with Aadhaar and other ID repositories facilitates cross-verification while preventing fraudulent entries.
    3. Machine Learning Models: These identify patterns of duplication and commonalities across datasets.
    4. Paperless Process: Transition from manual to cloud-based verification reduces procedural errors.
    5. Accountability Enhancement: Real-time dashboards enable monitoring of deletions, corrections, and transfers.

    Challenges and Procedural Gaps

    1. Administrative Lapse: Failures stem not from technology but from poor implementation and follow-up by EROs.
    2. Inconsistent Updates: Delay in updating inter-constituency migration data leads to overlapping entries.
    3. Procedural Redundancy: Revisions often become ritualistic exercises without systemic correction mechanisms.
    4. Accountability Deficit: Lack of penal action against negligent officials reduces deterrence.
    5. Digital Divide: Areas with limited connectivity face challenges in real-time digital verification.

    Way Forward

    1. Institutional Accountability: Make EROs answerable for errors through performance audits.
    2. Continuous Roll Updating: Transition from annual revision to dynamic roll management.
    3. Citizen Participation: Introduce crowdsourced error reporting through verified portals.
    4. Data Integration: Extend linkage with Aadhaar, PAN, and DigiLocker for authentication.
    5. Transparency Mechanism: Establish public dashboards for tracking deletion and addition records.
    6. Legal Framework: Consider amending the RPA to provide statutory backing for digital roll management.

    Conclusion

    The Special Intensive Revision (SIR 2.0) symbolizes India’s move towards a digitally verifiable democracy, but its success depends on administrative accountability as much as on technology. Ensuring a clean, accurate, and dynamic electoral roll is not a technical formality, it is a democratic imperative. Only a transparent, error-free voter database can sustain public faith in India’s electoral integrity.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2024] Examine the need for electoral reforms as suggested by various committees with particular reference to the “one nation-one election” principle.

    Linkage: It addresses electoral reform as a structural and procedural issue under the Representation of the People Act (RPA, 1950), the same law governing the SIR initiative. It connects with the broader reform drive for efficient, error-free elections.

  • Restoring fiscal space for the states

    Introduction

    India’s fiscal federalism has long been guided by the principle of cooperative balance, where both the Centre and States share resources, responsibilities, and accountability. However, the post-GST era has altered this equilibrium. The recent merger of the GST compensation cess with regular tax marks a watershed moment, ending an era of fiscal cushioning for States and raising pressing questions about States’ financial independence.

    With rising public aspirations, widening service delivery gaps, and increased welfare commitments, States are grappling with constrained fiscal space. The centralisation of taxation powers, growing dependence on Central transfers, and the limited flexibility to raise revenue are redefining India’s fiscal federalism.

    Why in the News?

    The abolition of the GST compensation cess, after five years of implementation, marks a turning point in India’s fiscal framework. For the first time since GST’s rollout in 2017, the compensation mechanism, which assured States 14% annual revenue growth, has ended.

    This is significant because:

    • The cess previously cushioned States from revenue shortfalls during GST transition.
    • Its removal exposes the true fiscal capacity of States, revealing wide disparities in revenue generation.
    • The Centre’s growing use of cesses and surcharges, which are not shareable with States, has further squeezed State finances.
    • The resulting imbalance has rekindled the debate on “fiscal autonomy versus fiscal efficiency.”

    Evolving Fiscal Architecture

    How has GST altered India’s tax landscape?

    1. Shift from origin-based to destination-based taxation: GST replaced multiple State taxes with a unified structure, eroding the States’ control over indirect taxes.
    2. Shared tax base: Both Centre and States levy GST, but decision-making lies with the GST Council, where the Centre has a dominant role.
    3. Erosion of fiscal autonomy: States lost independent authority to adjust tax rates or design fiscal responses tailored to their economies.
    4. Cess and surcharge dominance: These have become a parallel fiscal instrument for the Centre, bypassing the divisible tax pool.

    Changing Centre–State Financial Relations

    How have constitutional mechanisms evolved over time?

    1. Articles 268–293 define the fiscal relationship between Centre and States.
    2. The Finance Commission (Article 280) determines devolution, but several States allege that the criteria penalise progressive, industrial States.
    3. With the abolition of the Planning Commission in 2014, only two main transfer channels remain, Finance Commission grants and Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS).
    4. Article 282 allows discretionary Central grants, often perceived as politically influenced, affecting opposition-ruled States disproportionately.

    Declining Devolution and Fiscal Dependence

    How serious is the resource imbalance between Centre and States?

    1. Despite recommendations of 42% devolution (14th Finance Commission), actual transfers as a share of gross tax revenue have declined.
    2. Cesses and surcharges, which are non-shareable, reached ₹3.86 lakh crore (RE 2024–25) and are projected at ₹4.23 lakh crore (BE 2025–26).
    3. Central transfers still account for 44% of States’ revenue receipts, ranging from 72% for Bihar to 20% for Haryana, highlighting the uneven dependency landscape.
    4. The Centre collects 67% of total tax revenue, while States handle over 52% of total expenditure, particularly in health, education, and agriculture.
    5. This structural mismatch constrains States’ fiscal flexibility and deepens intergovernmental friction.

    Emerging Demands for Fiscal Reforms

    What are States and experts proposing for fiscal autonomy?

    1. Restructuring tax-sharing principles: Revisiting Finance Commission formulas to reflect true expenditure needs and reward performance equitably.
    2. Personal Income Tax sharing: Proposal to share or allow States to “top up” the personal income tax base to reduce fiscal dependence.
    3. Learning from Canada: Canadian provinces collect 54% of taxes and spend 60%, offering a model of greater subnational flexibility.
    4. Transparent devolution: Merging cesses and surcharges into the divisible pool could enhance transparency and equity.
    5. Independent fiscal oversight: Establishing a permanent intergovernmental fiscal council for mediation and coordination.

    The Way Forward: Towards Cooperative Fiscal Federalism

    How can fiscal space be restored to States?

    1. Revisit GST architecture: Grant States limited powers to vary tax rates within a band for specific commodities or services.
    2. Rationalise CSS schemes: Allow greater flexibility for States to design locally suited welfare interventions.
    3. Enhance fiscal responsibility: Encourage States to improve tax compliance, widen base, and adopt technology-driven revenue administration.
    4. Periodic fiscal reviews: Institutionalise data-based monitoring to balance efficiency with equity.
    5. Political cooperation: Encourage a non-partisan GST Council model where fiscal debates remain guided by economic logic, not politics.

    Conclusion

    India’s growth story is fundamentally federal. The vitality of its States determines the resilience of its economy. As the GST compensation era ends and States’ expenditure responsibilities rise, restoring their fiscal autonomy is essential for sustainable growth. True cooperative federalism demands not just consultation but real power-sharing in fiscal decision-making. Empowering States fiscally is not a concession — it is a constitutional necessity for a balanced and vibrant India.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2024] 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.

    Linkage: The phasing out of the GST compensation cess and rising use of non-shareable cesses and surcharges reflect the Centre’s growing fiscal dominance, compelling States to seek reforms in tax devolution to rebuild trust and uphold true cooperative federalism.

  • [3rd October 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: Should Ladakh get statehood?

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2024] What changes has the Union Government recently introduced in the domain of Centre-State relations? Suggest measures to strengthen federalism.

    Linkage: Ladakh’s case reflects the Union’s increasing control over border UTs, where administrative powers lie with the LG and Centre, marginalising local bodies — a recent trend in Centre-State/UT relations. Strengthening federalism requires constitutional safeguards (Sixth Schedule/statehood) and greater devolution of powers and finances to elected institutions.

    Mentor’s Comment

    The debate on Ladakh’s statehood is not merely about administrative restructuring, it is about the soul of Indian federalism. It combines questions of representation, tribal identity, border security, and constitutional safeguards. This issue is now a case study in balancing national interests with local aspirations.

    Introduction

    Ladakh, separated from Jammu & Kashmir in 2019 and designated a Union Territory (UT), was expected to gain autonomy and focused development. Instead, it has witnessed deepening resentment. The recent violence in Leh (September 24, 2025), which left four dead and led to the arrest of climate activist Sonam Wangchuck under the NSA, highlights the widening trust deficit. Civil society platforms like the Leh Apex Body (LAB) and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) demand statehood, inclusion under the Sixth Schedule, a Public Service Commission, and separate Lok Sabha representation.

    Why in the News?

    This is the first major violent episode in Ladakh since its conversion to a UT, bringing the region’s discontent into national focus. While the Centre insists that measures like reservations and recruitment drives are underway, locals argue these are executive orders, not constitutional guarantees. The clash exposes the failure of the UT model in ensuring democratic accountability, despite Ladakh’s strategic importance on the China–Pakistan frontier.

    Democratic Deficit in Ladakh

    1. Loss of Voice: Earlier part of J&K Assembly; now Ladakhis cannot influence laws or leadership.
    2. Dominance of Bureaucrats: Short-term officials override local voices, bypassing elected Hill Councils.
    3. Recruitment Vacuum: No Public Service Commission; six years without gazetted officer recruitments.

    Tribal and Land Safeguards at Risk

    1. Earlier Protection: Article 370 & 35A guaranteed land and job protections.
    2. Post-2019 Vacuum: Absence of safeguards raises fears of demographic change.
    3. Constitutional Demands: LAB & KDA demand Sixth Schedule — protection for tribal culture, language, land rights, beyond mere executive orders.

    Sixth Schedule vs Statehood

    1. Government Stance: Argues Sixth Schedule inclusion is a logical first step before statehood.
    2. Counter View: Sajjad Kargili stresses that Sixth Schedule alone is insufficient; democracy needs statehood.
    3. Delhi Model Analogy: UTs with legislatures (Delhi) show friction with LGs — raising doubts about partial arrangements.

    Population and Statehood Question

    1. Centre’s Hesitation: Population (~3.5 lakh) too small for statehood.
    2. Rebuttal: Sikkim (similar population) became a State in 1975; Goa in 1987.
    3. Fragmented Governance: Ladakh’s five new districts have micro-populations (5,000–7,000), making local governance difficult without a state-level structure.

    Federalism and Centre-State Relations

    1. Supreme Court Endorsement: Upheld bifurcation of J&K into UTs.
    2. Federal Concerns: Raises questions about top-down imposition of governance models in sensitive areas.
    3. Centre vs Local Bodies: ₹6,000 crore annual budget, but only ₹600 crore devolved to Hill Councils; rest controlled by LG & bureaucrats.

    Security Dimensions and Border Considerations

    1. Centre’s Argument: Border sensitivity justifies UT status.
    2. Counterpoint: Punjab, Sikkim, Uttarakhand are border states yet enjoy full statehood.
    3. Chinese Incursion 2020: Occurred post-UT status, undermining the security rationale.

    Civil Society Demands and Distrust

    1. Four Core Demands: Statehood, Sixth Schedule, Public Service Commission, dual Lok Sabha seats (Leh & Kargil).
    2. Distrust of MHA: LAB & KDA halted talks, citing cosmetic concessions (women’s reservation, ST reservation) that miss the core demands.
    3. Governance Paralysis: Hill Councils reduced to ceremonial bodies; LG ignores their inputs.

    Nationalism vs Allegations of “Anti-national”

    1. Local Sentiment: Ladakhis argue they are patriotic, sacrificing lives to defend frontiers.
    2. Mistrust Campaign: Trolls label them pro-China/pro-Pakistan, deepening alienation.
    3. Identity Politics: Perceived delegitimisation fuels separatist tendencies — dangerous for a border region.

    Comparative Perspectives

    1. Delhi & Puducherry: UTs with legislatures — persistent Centre-LG tussle.
    2. North-East Sixth Schedule States: Despite safeguards, autonomy diluted by weak implementation.
    3. Statehood as Trust-Building: Granting Ladakh statehood could mirror past steps where integration was strengthened by empowerment (Sikkim, Mizoram).

    Conclusion

    The Ladakh case underscores that federalism is not only about administrative convenience but about trust-building. Sixth Schedule inclusion may provide interim safeguards, but without democratic statehood, Ladakh risks remaining voiceless. The challenge before India is to ensure that Ladakhis, guardians of a strategic frontier, feel like equal partners in the Union, not subjects of bureaucratic rule.

  • Listen to Ladakh

    Introduction

    Ladakh has historically been a symbol of loyalty, sacrifice, and national integration. From its soldiers’ valour in wars to its monasteries embodying peace, it has stood by India unfailingly. However, the grant of Union Territory status in 2019 has created unexpected discontent, with Ladakhis now demanding constitutional safeguards, ecological balance, and meaningful empowerment. Delhi’s response to Ladakh is not just a matter of regional governance but also of strategic national importance.

    Why in News (Timeline of Demands)

    1. August 2019: Ladakh granted Union Territory (UT) status after abrogation of Article 370. Initially welcomed in Leh but caused discontent in Kargil.
    2. 2020–21: Fears of demographic change, land alienation, and ecological damage surface; demand for inclusion in the Sixth Schedule grows.
    3. 2021: Formation of Leh Apex Body (Buddhist leaders) and Kargil Democratic Alliance (Muslim leaders). Despite historic rivalry, both groups unite demanding constitutional safeguards.
    4. 2022–23: Protests intensify for empowerment of Hill Councils, job reservation, and land protection.
    5. 2024–25: Discontent spills into the streets; Ladakh witnesses unprecedented Buddhist–Muslim solidarity. Calls grow louder for legislative assembly or statehood, beyond Sixth Schedule status.

    Ladakh’s legacy of loyalty and sacrifice

    1. Military contributions: From 1947 raids to the 1999 Kargil War, Ladakhis have consistently defended India’s frontiers. Heroes like Colonel Chewang Rinchen and Sonam Wangchuk embody this spirit.
    2. Cultural resilience: Monasteries, mosques, and local traditions reflect Ladakh’s unique identity and trust in India’s unity.

    Why discontent has emerged after 2019

    1. Union Territory status: While celebrated initially, it stripped Ladakh of legislative empowerment, leaving governance centralised.
    2. Fear of marginalisation: Locals worry about land, jobs, and ecology in the absence of Sixth Schedule protections.
    3. Geostrategic location: Proximity to Chinese and Pakistani borders heightens the stakes of dissatisfaction.

    Community unity and mobilization

    1. Leh Apex Body and Kargil Democratic Alliance: For the first time, Buddhists and Muslims have forged a common platform.
    2. Shared agenda: Demands include strengthened Hill Councils, greater representation, and protection of Ladakh’s unique ecological and cultural heritage.
    3. Grassroots mobilization: Local movements are engaging with Delhi directly, seeking dialogue and recognition.

    Delhi’s challenge and way forward

    1. Triangular balance: Policies must reconcile development, ecology, and empowerment.
    2. Prudent engagement: The Centre must avoid delay, ensure quiet consultations, and expand local representation.
    3. Strategic necessity: Addressing Ladakh’s demands is vital to prevent alienation in a sensitive frontier region.

    National and strategic significance

    1. Security implications: Every decision has ripple effects across the Line of Actual Control and Pakistan frontiers.
    2. Democratic ethos: Empowering Ladakh demonstrates India’s ability to blend federalism with strategic caution.
    3. Symbolic importance: How Delhi treats Ladakh will echo in other sensitive regions seeking greater autonomy.

    Conclusion

    Ladakh’s loyalty to India has been unquestionable. Yet its current grievances demand sensitive handling. By combining development with ecological protection and democratic empowerment, Delhi can reaffirm Ladakh’s trust and secure this frontier for future generations. This is a test of India’s governance maturity and strategic foresight.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2022] While the national political parties in India favour centralisation, the regional parties are in favour of State autonomy. Comment

    Linkage: Ladakh after its 2019 Union Territory status is a live case of the centralisation vs. autonomy debate. The Centre justified direct control citing security and integration, reflecting the national parties’ bias for centralisation. Yet, Ladakh’s Buddhist and Muslim groups now demand Sixth Schedule safeguards and stronger Hill Councils, echoing the regional push for autonomy to protect land, ecology, and culture. This tension captures the essence of the PYQ — the challenge of balancing national integration with regional aspirations in India’s federal system.

  • [18th September 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: A judicial nudge following stuck legislative business

    PYQ Relevance:

    UPSC 2022: Discuss the essential conditions for exercise of the legislative powers by the Governor. Discuss the legality of re-promulgation of ordinances by the Governor without placing them before the Legislature.

    Linkage: The recent Supreme Court directive fixing a timeline for Governors under Article 200 directly relates to the constitutional limits on gubernatorial powers discussed in the 2022 question. Both highlight that the Governor, as a constitutional head, must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and not misuse discretion to stall legislation. Just as re-promulgation of ordinances undermines legislative supremacy, withholding assent indefinitely violates constitutional morality and federal balance.

    Mentor’s Comment:

    The recent Supreme Court intervention fixing a time limit for Governors and the President to act on Bills marks a constitutional milestone. This decision is not merely about timelines but about strengthening federalism, ensuring legislative efficacy, and curbing misuse of gubernatorial discretion. For UPSC aspirants, it becomes a vital case study in Centre-State relations, separation of powers, and the evolving role of the judiciary in sustaining democracy.

    Introduction

    The Supreme Court’s decision to prescribe a three-month time limit for Governors and the President to take a final call on Bills under Article 200/201 has reignited debates on federalism, separation of powers, and the scope of judicial activism. For decades, Governors have been accused of sitting indefinitely on Bills, creating a legislative deadlock and undermining the democratic will of elected legislatures. This judicial nudge aims to resolve what has become a serious constitutional anomaly, ensuring that governance does not remain hostage to political manoeuvring.

    Why is this in the news?

    The issue is significant because, for the first time, the Supreme Court has imposed a specific timeline—three months—for Governors and the President to act on Bills, despite the Constitution prescribing none. This intervention arose after repeated instances where Governors withheld assent or simply delayed action on Bills for years, undermining legislative functioning. The decision is both a remedy for constitutional paralysis and a reinforcement of federal balance, making it a landmark moment in India’s constitutional journey.

    Judicial clarity on Article 200:

    1. Four options under Article 200: Assent to the Bill, withhold assent, return the Bill for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President.
    2. No discretion intended: The omission of the words “in his discretion” (present in Government of India Act, 1935, Section 75) shows the Constituent Assembly wanted Governors to act only on aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
    3. Judicial commissions’ stand: Both Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions reiterated that Governors are constitutional heads, not independent power centres.

    Has the Governor misused discretionary powers?

    1. Contradictory judicial stance: While Shamsher Singh (1974) acknowledged discretionary scope, later judgments including Nabam Rebia (2016) and Tamil Nadu Governor case (2025) rejected such independence.
    2. Risk of overreach: Allowing Governors unilateral discretion would convert them into “super constitutional authorities,” stalling state governance.
    3. Expert view: D.D. Basu highlighted that unlike UK sovereigns, Indian Governors have no scope for withholding assent independently.

    Why did the Supreme Court fix a timeline?

    1. Legislative paralysis: Governors had sat on Bills for years without decision, blocking governance.
    2. Judicial remedy: By fixing three months, the Court ensured smooth functioning of legislatures, akin to how Article 21’s scope was expanded through judicial interpretation in Maneka Gandhi.
    3. Federal protection: Recent rulings in State of Punjab v. Governor (2023) and State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor (2025) strengthened states’ autonomy, preventing misuse of gubernatorial office.

    Could the Union have intervened earlier?

    1. Role under Article 355: The Union is duty-bound to ensure constitutional governance in states. A Governor blocking Bills indefinitely amounts to violation of constitutional provisions.
    2. Non-intervention so far: Successive Union governments avoided directing Governors, leading to judicial stepping in.
    3. Judicial nudge as necessity: The Court’s ruling acts as a constitutional guardrail in absence of executive remedy.

    Implications for federalism and democracy

    1. Strengthening federal balance: Prevents Governors from acting as political agents of the Centre.
    2. Judicial activism or necessity?: Critics see it as judicial overreach, but history shows courts often expand constitutional meaning to meet new realities (e.g., Article 21 due process).
    3. Legislative efficiency: Restores faith in elected assemblies’ authority, ensuring people’s mandate is not subverted.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court’s directive to Governors and the President is a pragmatic response to a constitutional vacuum. It plugs misuse, safeguards federalism, and ensures legislative efficiency. Far from amending the Constitution, it exemplifies how judicial interpretation adapts constitutional principles to emerging challenges. This marks a significant moment where judicial innovation has strengthened democracy by preventing paralysis of governance.

  • Decisive step (Including Aadhar as 12th document for voter verification)

    Introduction

    The right to vote is one of the most fundamental expressions of citizenship in a democracy. However, procedural rigidity in electoral roll revisions often results in the exclusion of genuine electors. Recently, the Supreme Court intervened decisively in Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, directing the inclusion of Aadhaar as one of the 12 valid documents for voter verification. With over 65 lakh voters already struck off from Bihar’s draft rolls, this judgment is a crucial corrective step ensuring that the processes of democracy do not become instruments of exclusion.

    Significance of the Supreme Court’s Decision

    1. Judicial clarity: The Supreme Court dismantled the ECI’s argument that Aadhaar is proof of residency, not citizenship, by highlighting that most other accepted documents (e.g., ration card, driving license) also do not conclusively establish citizenship.
    2. Preventing mass exclusion: With nearly 90% of Bihar’s population holding Aadhaar versus only 2% holding passports, excluding Aadhaar would have disenfranchised a vast number of eligible voters, especially the poor and marginalised.
    3. Correcting anomalies: The Hindu’s statistical analysis of the exclusion revealed disproportionate impacts and that women were removed in large numbers, death rates appeared statistically improbable, and questionable “permanent shifts” particularly affected migrants and married women.

    Implications of the Judgment for Voter Inclusivity

    1. Lifeline for excluded electors: Over 65 lakh voters struck off the draft rolls now have a viable route back through Aadhaar verification.
    2. Support for existing electors: Even those already on the rolls needing document verification benefit from Aadhaar’s inclusion.
    3. Validation of civil society concerns: The Court’s order vindicates activists and political groups who warned that excluding Aadhaar contradicted earlier judicial guidance and created practical hurdles.

    Challenges Exposed in the Election Commission’s Process

    1. Questionable reasoning: The ECI insisted Aadhaar was inadmissible, despite its wide acceptance in governance systems.
    2. Haste over accuracy: The rushed SIR process compromised diligence, undermining the credibility of voter rolls.
    3. Patterns of exclusion: Disproportionate impact on marginalised groups like migrant workers and married women reveals systemic flaws.

    National Precedent Established by the Ruling

    1. Uniform standards: This ruling is not limited to Bihar but extends to future electoral revisions across India.
    2. Balance between accuracy and inclusivity: It forces the ECI to reorient its approach towards humane, diligent verification.
    3. Strengthening democracy: Electoral rolls form the foundation of free and fair elections; inclusivity ensures democratic legitimacy.

    Future Expectations from the Election Commission of India

    1. House-to-house verification: A more thorough, grassroots-level approach to ensure accuracy.
    2. Inclusive procedures: Processes must prevent the disenfranchisement of genuine voters, especially the vulnerable.
    3. Aligning with practical realities: Aadhaar, as the most widely held identity document, should be part of India’s democratic processes.

    Way Forward

    • Strengthening Verification Mechanisms
      1. Conduct comprehensive house-to-house verification to avoid wrongful deletions.
      2. Use technology-enabled checks (biometric authentication with Aadhaar, but with strong safeguards for privacy).
    • Ensuring Inclusivity
      1. Simplify documentation requirements for vulnerable groups (migrants, women, senior citizens).
      2. Provide doorstep assistance for voter registration in rural and marginalised areas.
    • Institutional Strengthening of ECI
      1. Enhance independence, transparency, and accountability of the Election Commission.
      2. Establish an independent audit mechanism to regularly review voter roll revisions.
    • Legal and Policy Reforms
      1. Consider amendments to the Representation of People Act to clarify permissible use of Aadhaar and protect against misuse.
      2. Align electoral processes with Supreme Court jurisprudence on Aadhaar to balance convenience with rights.
    • Public Awareness and Participation
      1. Encourage civil society participation in monitoring electoral rolls.
      2. Launch mass awareness campaigns to educate voters on their rights and available documentation.
    • Long-Term Electoral Reform Agenda
      1. Explore remote voting mechanisms for migrant workers.
      2. Move towards integrated digital electoral rolls across states for consistency.
      3. Institutionalise regular, transparent consultations between ECI, political parties, and judiciary.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court’s directive to include Aadhaar in voter verification is more than a legal clarification; it is a democratic safeguard. By preventing procedural exclusion and ensuring accessibility, the judgment reaffirms India’s commitment to universal suffrage. For the ECI, the challenge now lies in balancing diligence with inclusivity, creating an electoral roll that truly reflects India’s diverse citizenry.

    Value Addition

    Constitutional & Legal Dimensions:

    • Article 326: Guarantees universal adult suffrage, forming the foundation of electoral democracy.
    • Article 14 & 21: Ensure equality and due process — mass exclusion from voter rolls would violate these.
    • Representation of People Act, 1951: Governs electoral rolls, voter eligibility, and disqualification.

    Case Laws:

    1. PUCL v. Union of India (2003) – Recognised “right to know” of voters.
    2. Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006) – Stressed on the principle of electoral integrity.
    3. Supreme Court Aadhaar Judgments (2018) – Aadhaar can be used for welfare and verification, but cannot be made mandatory for all purposes.

    Committees & Reports:

    1. Indrajit Gupta Committee (1998): Highlighted need for free and fair elections as cornerstone of democracy.
    2. Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2008): Stressed inclusivity and transparency in voter registration.
    3. Law Commission of India (255th Report, 2015): Recommended linkage of voter databases with Aadhaar for accuracy, subject to safeguards.

    Democratic Governance & Inclusivity:

    1. Inclusivity vs. Accuracy: Electoral reforms must balance weeding out bogus voters with preventing disenfranchisement of genuine citizens.
    2. Marginalised Communities: Migrants, women, and the poor are disproportionately affected by procedural rigidity — their access must be prioritised.

    Comparative Insight:

    1. USA: Struggles with strict voter ID laws that disproportionately affect minorities.
    2. Canada: Allows multiple identification options to avoid disenfranchisement.
    3. India’s Aadhaar: A unique digital identity tool with near-universal coverage (~90%), giving India an advantage in inclusive electoral reforms.

    Ethical Perspective (GS 4 angle)

    1. Principle of Justice: Fair opportunity for every citizen to vote.
    2. Procedural Fairness: Electoral rules must not arbitrarily exclude individuals.
    3. Democratic Accountability: ECI must uphold public trust by ensuring inclusivity in its procedures.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2017] To enhance the quality of democracy in India the Election Commission of India has proposed electoral reforms in 2016. What are the suggested reforms and how far are they significant to make democracy successful?

    Linkage: The Supreme Court’s directive on including Aadhaar as a valid voter verification document directly relates to the broader debate on electoral reforms. Just as the ECI’s 2016 reform proposals sought to strengthen inclusivity and transparency, this judgment ensures that procedural rigidity does not erode democratic participation. Both highlight the evolving role of the ECI in balancing accuracy, accessibility, and fairness in India’s electoral process.