Adminsitrative Relations

1
A Project Work In FEDERALISM (HONOURS II)
ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS AND SARKARIA COMMISSION
SUBMITTED TO: Mrs. SHRADDHA RAJPUT

FACULTY: - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (FEDERALISM)
SUBMITTED BY: PRANAV KHANDELWAL

SEMESTER 7
SECTION A
ROLL NO. 94
SUBMITTED ON:
8th OCTOBER, 2015
HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

Raipur, Chhattisgarh
Administrative Relations and Sarkaria Commission

2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to the Almighty who gave me the strength to accomplish the project with sheer hard
work and honesty.
I would like to sincerely thank my faculty for Federalism Mrs. Shraddha Rajput Mam for
giving me this topic and guiding me throughout the project. Through this project I have
learned a lot about the aforesaid topic and this in turn has helped me grow as a student.
My heartfelt gratitude also goes out to the staff and administration of HNLU for the
infrastructure in the form of our library and IT lab that was a source of great help in the
completion of this project.
PRANAV KHANDELWAL

3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 5
Research Methodology .............................................................................................................. 7
Scope and Limitation ................................................................................................................. 7
Objectives .................................................................................................................................. 7
Research Question ..................................................................................................................... 7
Scheme of Chapterisation .......................................................................................................... 7
Chapterisation ............................................................................................................................ 9
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS .......................... 9
CHAPTER 2: DISTRIBUTION OF EXECUTIVE POWER .............................................. 11
CHAPTER 3: POWER OF CENTRE TO GIVE DIRECTIONS TO STATES .................. 14
CHAPTER 4: ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS BETWEEN CENTRE-STATE WITH

RESPECT TO PUBLIC ORDER ........................................................................................ 19
Constitutional Jurisdictions of Union and States ............................................................. 20
Centre's Power to Declare an Area within a State as Disturbed ...................................... 22
Sarkaria Commission's Recommendations ...................................................................... 23
CHAPTER 5: VARIOUS MACHINERIES FOR INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CO-

OPERATION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS .................................................... 24
Inter-Governmental Delegation of Administrative Powers ............................................. 24
All India Services ............................................................................................................. 28
Inter-State Councils ......................................................................................................... 29
CHAPTER 6: INTER-STATE WATER DISPUTES (ARTICLE 262) .............................. 31
Sarkaria Commission Recommendations ........................................................................ 32
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 33
References ................................................................................................................................ 34
Acts/Statutes ........................................................................................................................ 34
Books ................................................................................................................................... 34

4
Cases Referred ..................................................................................................................... 34
Reports ................................................................................................................................. 35
Websites ............................................................................................................................... 35

5
INTRODUCTION
Indian Constitution is neither purely 'federal' nor purely 'unitary'. The federal form is clearly
manifest in the constitutional distribution of powers between the union and the states not only
in the legislative field but also in executive and administrative fields. In normal times, the
constitutional scheme has to ensure autonomy of the states in regard to the spheres of
activities earmarked for the states in the Constitution. Specific subjects have been allocated to
the exclusive fields of the centre and the states respectively and certain subjects have been
allocated to the 'concurrent field' with the stipulation that in the 'state' and 'concurrent' fields,
the states should have the freedom to follow their own policies except to the extent that
Parliament itself decides to legislate under the powers given to it under the Constitution.
Historically, a highly centralised colonial government had slowly been transformed into a
semi-feudal set-up. In post-Independent India, the needs of planned development, national
integration and maintenance of law and order resulted in a considerable degree of
centralisation of powers in the hands of the centre. Single party rule for a long period of time
has also contributed to the increasing preponderance of the centre. Centre-state relationship in
reality is a matter of interaction between the two levels of governments in course of discharge
of their duties to people. In administering subjects like education, health, agriculture, etc. the
two levels of governments have to interact in the interest of efficient management of these
functions. Administrative problems assume political colour when the interactions are
conditioned by considerations of power and hegemony. As the Administrative Reforms
Commission commented "The problem of Centre-State relations has acquired new
dimensions and new importance in recent times due to several political parties being in power
at the Centre and in the States."
In the modern administrative age, administration plays a very significant role by way of
enforcing the law and promoting socio-economic welfare of the people. The pattern of
administrative relationship between the Centre and the States, therefore, assumes a great
significance in a developing country like India.
The Indian Constitution contains more elaborate provisions regarding administrative relations
between the Centre and the States than are to be found in any of the three Federations of the
U.S.A., Canada and Australia. The Constitution lays down a flexible and permissive, and not
a rigid, scheme of allocation of administrative responsibilities between the Centre and the
States. The scheme is so designed as to permit all kinds of co-operative administrative
arrangements between the two levels of government.

6
The administrative relations between the Centre and the States have been stated from Article
256 to Article 263 of the Constitution. As a rule, the Central Government exercises
administrative authority over all the matters on which the Parliament has the power to make
laws, whereas the State Governments exercise authority over the matters included in the State
List.

7
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research is descriptive and analytical in nature. Secondary and Electronic resources have
been largely used to gather information about the topic.
Websites, books, journals, articles and reports have been primarily helpful in giving this
project a firm structure.
Footnotes have been provided wherever needed to acknowledge the source.
SCOPE AND LIMITATION

The scope of this project study includes the provisions contained in Constitution of India with
respect to administrative relations and the report and recommendations of Sarkaria
Commission on it. The project study will also include in other relevant factors and statutes.
OBJECTIVES
To discuss about Administrative Relations under Indian Constitution.
To study and discuss about the provisions related to administrative relations.
To study and discuss about recommendations made by Sarkaria Commission with
respect to administrative relations.
RESEARCH QUESTION
What is meant by administrative relations between union and states, what all matters are
covered by it and what were the recommendations made by Sarkaria Commision with respect
to it?
SCHEME OF CHAPTERISATION
1. Chapter 1 of the project states about the concept of Administrative Relations.
2. Chapter 2 of the project specifically deals with distribution of executive powers
between centre and the states with respect to Articles 73 and 162 of Constitution of
India.
3. Chapter 3 talks about the power of Central Government to issue direction to states
under articles 256 and 257 of the Constitution of India.
4. Chapter 4 further elaborates the administrative relations with respect to public order
under articles 355 and 356 of Constitution of India.

8
5. Chapter 5 states about the various machineries for inter-governmental co-operation

for administrative relations which includes All-India Services, the Inter-State
Councils and Inter-Governmental Delegation of Administrative Powers.
6. Chapter 6 specifically deals with Inter-State River Water dispute under article 262 of
Constitution of India, the act created as a result of it.

9
CHAPTERISATION
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS

The most operational irritants to Centre-State Relations springs in administrative sphere &
they have led to most slanderous accusation against executive functionaries and decision
makers. It is an area in which seemingly detailed provisions of the Constitution have not
helped much. In the modern administrative age, administration plays a very significant role
by way of enforcing the law of promoting socio-economic welfare of the people. The pattern
of administrative relationship between the Centre and the State, therefore, assumes a great
significance in developing country like India. The Indian Constitution contains more
elaborate provisions regarding the administrative relation between the Centre and the States
than are to be found in any of the three federation of the U.S.A., Canada and Australia. The
Constitution lays down a flexible and permissive and not a rigid scheme of allocation of
administrative responsibilities between the Centre and State. The scheme is so designed as to
permit all kind of co-operative administrative arrangement between the two levels of
Government.
It is notable, however, that though legislative and judicial power is defined by the
Constitution, this is not the case with the executive in our Constitution. Some Constitutional
experts like Wade & Philips, try to define executive functions by including in it "not only the
direction of national policy, but also the execution of effectuation that policy by
administrative acts." The executive functions so understood include the initiation of
legislation, the maintenance of order and the promotion of social and economic welfare and
indeed all administration.1
Any federal scheme involves division of powers between the Union and the States not only in
the legislative field but also in executive and administrative fields. Such distribution of
administrative powers may have a strong Central bias as it exists in India. However, in India
the Union does not have any separate and effective machinery for the administration and
execution of central laws or to implement its policies. This is not so in other federations
where both the federal and state governments create their own agencies and machinery for the
administration of their laws and the subjects allotted to them under the constitution. In India,
the Union is dependent on the states to give effect to its programmes and laws. The scheme of
distribution of administrative powers had thus, twofold objectives. It arms the Union
1
Wade & Philips, Constitutional Law, 7th ed., pp 17-18

10
Government with powers to have effective control over the administrative setup of the State
and at the same time it adopts several devices for inter-governmental cooperation and
coordination.
The Supreme Court of India has tried to define executive functions as follows2 "Ordinarily
the executive power connotes the residue of Governmental functions that remains after
legislative and judicial functions are taken away subject, of course, to the provisions of the
Constitution or of any law. The executive function comprises both the determination of
policy as well as carrying it into execution, the initiation of legislation, the maintenance of
order, the promotion of social and economic welfare, the direction of welfare policy, in fact,
the carrying on or supervision of the general administration of the State."
In the sphere of administrative relations also the Constitution shows a distinct leaning in
favour of the Union. It provides for a dual polity. Each State has its own government and
administration which exercises administrative powers in respect of the subjects enumerated in
the State List. The Union Government has exclusive administrative jurisdiction over the
subjects of the Union List and the residuary subjects. The Constitution provides for
concurrent administrative jurisdiction to the Union and the States over the subjects of the
Concurrent List.
Part XI, Chapter II of the Constitution, lays down the administrative relations between the
Union and States. When we analyse these provisions we find that in the sphere of
administrative relations also the Union enjoys a superior position vis-a-vis the States.3
The Indian Constitution is based on the principle that the executive power is co-extensive
with legislative power, which means that the Union executive/the state executive can deal
with all matters on which Parliament/state legislature can legislate. The executive power over
subjects in the Concurrent list is also exercised by the states unless the Union government
decides to do so. The Centre can issue directives to the state to ensure compliance with the
laws made by Parliament for construction and maintenance of the means of communications
declared to be of national or military importance, on the measures to be adopted for
protection of the railways, for the welfare of the scheduled tribes and for providing facilities
for instruction in mother tongue at primary stage to linguistic minorities. The Centre acquires
control over states through All India Services, grants- in- aid and the fact that the Parliament
can alone adjudicate in inter-state river disputes. During a proclamation of national
2
Ram Javaya Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab (1955) 2 SCR 225
3
http://www.preservearticles.com/2014072233501/administrativerelationsbetweenthecentreandstatesinindia.html

11
emergency as well as emergency due to the failure of constitutional machinery in a state the
Union government assumes all the executive powers of the state.
CHAPTER 2: DISTRIBUTION OF EXECUTIVE POWER

Along with the distribution of legislative and taxing powers, the executive power has also
been divided between the Centre and the States. Subject to a few exceptions, the general
principle followed in this connection is that the executive power is coextensive with
legislative power. The scope and extent of the executive power of the Centre extends
i. to the exercise of rights, authority and jurisdiction available to the Government of
India under a treaty or agreement; and
ii. to the matters with respect to which Parliament has power to make laws, subject to
this exception, however, that it does not extend in a State with respect to matters
regarding which the State Legislature also has power to make laws save when
expressly provided in the Constitution or a law made by Parliament [Art. 73].4
This means that the executive power with respect to the matters in the Concurrent List
ordinarily remains with the States unless the Constitution or Parliament by law expressly
provides otherwise.
The executive power of a State extends to matters with respect to which the State Legislature
has power to make laws, provided that in a matter with respect to which both Parliament and
State Legislature have power to make laws, the executive power of a State is subject to, and
limited by, the executive power expressly conferred by the Constitution, or by any law made
by Parliament, upon the Union or its authorities [Art. 162]. The proviso refers to the
Concurrent area.
From the above constitutional provisions, the following propositions emerge:
1. The executive power of the Centre extends to the whole of India in respect of matters
in List I.
2. However, the Centre is not obligated to administer by itself all matters in its exclusive
domain. It can, if it so desires, entrust administrative responsibility in any matter to
the States [Art.154(2)(b)].
3. A States executive power extends to its territory in respect of matters in List II.
4
M P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Sixth Edition at pp. 718

12
4. In respect of matters in which both the Centre and the States have legislative powers
(which means List III and List II in cases falling under Arts. 249, 250, 252, 353 and
356), ordinarily, the executive power rests with the States except when either the
Constitution, or a law of Parliament, expressly confers it on the Centre.5
In this area, therefore, there are several alternatives available. If the Centre makes no law, the
executive power rests with the States. When the Centre makes a law, it can adopt any of the
following alternatives regarding executive power under that law
a. it can leave it with the States, or
b. it may take over the entire administrative power itself by making an express provision
in the law to this effect; or
c. it may create a concurrent area by taking a part of the executive power itself and
leaving the rest to the States.
In the Concurrent field, therefore, ordinarily the authority to execute laws rests with the
States even when the law is passed by the Centre. In exceptional cases, however, Parliament
may prescribe that the execution of a Central law shall be with the Centre alone, or with both
the Centre and the States. In this field, even after the Centre assumes executive power under
its law, the residuary executive power under the entry may still rest with the States.6 In this
field, even after the centre assumes executive power under its law, the residuary execution
power under the entry may still rest with the States.
All these patterns may be seen working in actual practice. Under the Electricity (Supply) Act,
1956, enacted by Parliament under entry 38, List III, administrative powers have been left
wholly with the State Governments. Under the Industrial Disputes Act, enacted by Parliament
under entry 22, List III, administrative powers rest with both the Centre and the States. Under
the Essential Commodities Act, enacted by Parliament under entry 33, List III,7 the whole of
the power is vested in the Central Government which, however, delegate power to the States
to any extent it deems desirable. In actual practice, Centre has delegated a good deal of power
under this Act to the States. Under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the Centre has
assumed the entire responsibility for administration of the Act.
5
Supra Note 4 at pp. 719
6
Bishamber Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1982 SC 33; (1982) 1 SCC 39.
7
Supra Note 5

13
While there may be centralization in the sphere of legislation, there is lot of decentralization
in the area of administration. This is because the Centre has not established a separate
machinery of its own to execute most of its laws. Only a few subjects in the Union list, such
as, defence, foreign affairs, foreign exchange, posts and telegraphs, All India Radio and
Television airways, railways, currency, customs, union excises, income-tax, etc. are
administered by the Centre directly through its own machinery. Administration of a number
of matters in the Union list and most of the matters relating to them is secured through the
machinery of the States.
As has already been pointed out, the executive power of a modern government is not capable
of any precise definition. Art. 73 or 162 do not contain any definition as to what the executive
function is, or gives an exhaustive enumeration of the activities which could legitimately
come within its scope. A government in exercise of its executive powers is charged with the
duty and the responsibility of framing policies and carrying on the general administration. So
long as it does not go against any constitutional provision or any law, the width and
amplitude of its executive power cannot be circumscribed.
If there is no enactment covering a particular aspect, the government can carry on the
administration by issuing administrative instructions until the legislature chooses to make a
law in that behalf.8 Thus, a State Government can establish a bureau of investigation for
investigation of cases of tax evasion,9 or create a new district,10 or prescribe syllabi or text
books for schools,11 in the exercise of its executive power.
However, a government cannot in exercise of its executive power infringe the rights of the
people. If any governmental action is to operate to the prejudice of any person, it must be
supported by law.12
8
Supra Note 2 and 6
9
A.S. Narayana v. State of West Bengal, 78 C.W.N. 295
10
R. Sultan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, ILR 1970 AP 1075; Madhusoodanan Nair v. State of Kerala,
1983 KLT 43.
11
Ram Jawaya, supra; Naraindas Indurkhya v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1974 SC 1232; (1974) 4 SCC
788.
12
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bharat Singh, AIR 1967 SC 1170 : (1967) 2 SCR 454; Satwant Singh v. A.P.O.,
AIR 1967 SC 1836 : (1967) 3 SCR 525; Bennett Coleman Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106 : (1972) 2
SCC 788.

14
By reason of Article 298 of the Constitution, executive power also includes:

a) Carrying on any trade or business;
b) The acquisition, holding and disposal of property; and
c) The making of Contracts for any purpose.
A special provision has, been made in relation to matters included in the Concurrent List of
the Constitution. The executive power in relation to matters listed in the Concurrent List vests
in the States. But such power may be vested in the Union either by the Constitution or by a
law of the Parliament. The Parliament has also vested executive functions in the Union
over Concurrent List matters under several Acts. 13
Apart from the broad conferment of the executive power with respect to the scope of
legislative power, there are several provisions in the Constitution which have the effect of
extending the executive power of the Union and enabling the Union to exercise effective
control over the State(s). The executive power of the Union is vested in the President of India
who can exercise it directly or through officers subordinates to him in accordance with the
Constitution6. In our Parliamentary system, the President is the Constitutional head, the
executive power is exercised by the ruling party and political considerations play an
important role in administrative decision. In order to enable the Union to exercise
administrative control over the State(s), several techniques have been adopted. These
techniques have to be considered not only in the light of Constitutional framework but also
having regard to the newly emerging political realities.14
CHAPTER 3: POWER OF CENTRE TO GIVE DIRECTIONS TO STATES

As already mentioned, the executive powers of the Centre and states extend to those matters
on which they have legislative competence.15 The Centre is also empowered to give
directions to states in order to ensure that the state executive does not impede or prejudice the
laws or executive power of the Union in exercise of its authority.16 In case a state fails to
comply with or give effect to such directions of the Centre, the President may declare the
failure of constitutional machinery in the state and may take over its government.17
13
The Industrial Disputes Act,1947; The Essential Commodities Act, 1955, etc.
14
R.K. Chaubey, Federalism, Autonomy and Centre-State Relations; First Edition at pp.202-203
15
Articles 73 and 162.
16
Articles 256 and 257.
17
Article 365.

15
Article 256 of the Constitution states that the executive power of the states shall be so
exercised as to ensure compliance with the laws of Parliament. Also the union executive
power extends to the giving of such directions to the states as may appear to the Government
of India to be necessary for the purpose.
It is further stipulated under Article 256 of the Constitution that if the state government fails
to endorse the laws passed by the Parliament within its jurisdiction, the union government
can issue directions to the states to ensure their compliance. This article lays down that it
shall be the duty of the states to exercise its executive power so as to ensure that due effect is
given within the state to every act of Parliament and to every existing law which apply in that
state. This is a statement of constitutional duty of every state. The government of India is
entitled to give directions to the state government regarding the duty which is imposed upon
it, by this article.
It is clear from the phraseology of Article 256 that the existence of a law made by Parliament
is a condition precedent which must be satisfied for the issuance of a direction under it. No
direction can be issued under Article 256 where no enforcement of a law made by Parliament
is involved.18 Article 256 comes into operation if the Government of India feels that the
executive power of the State is being exercised in a manner which may amount to
impediment to enforcement of the Central laws.
Under Art. 257(1), the executive power of a State is to be so exercised as not to impede or
prejudice the exercise of the Centres executive power. The Centre can give such directions
to a State as may appear to the Central Government to be necessary for that purpose.
The words for that purpose in Art. 257(1) indicate that the power of the Centre to give
directions is limited to such situations only where some State executive action impedes or
prejudices the valid exercise of the Central executive power. This means that the Centre is not
entitled to give directions about the exercise of the State executive power in any field
reserved for the State executive which does not impede or collide with, or prejudice the
exercise of, the Unions executive power. Such a direction would be invalid. Art. 257(1)
primarily emphasizes the principle of federal supremacy.
It is obligatory on the part of the State Government to comply with the directions issued by
the Central Government under Arts. 256 and 257(1). The sanction to enforce the directions is
enshrined in Art. 356.19
18
Sharma Transport v. Govt. of A.P., AIR 2002 SC 322 : (2002) 2 SCC 188.
19
K. Co-op. Building Society Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1985 AP 242

16
In A.D.M., Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla,20 Chandrachud, J has observed as regards Art. 256
that it does not seem to confer any right on any individual. That Article appears in Part XI
which deals with relations between the Union and the States. A failure to comply with
Art.256 may attract serious consequences but no court is likely to entertain a grievance at the
instance of a private party that Art. 256 has not been complied with by a State Government.
Explaining the rationale of Articles 257(2) and 257(3)9, the Sarkaria Commission has
observed:21
Even though clause (1) of Article 257 gives the Union full control over the exercise of the
executive power of every State to ensure that it does not impede or prejudice the exercise of
the executive power of the Union, the Constitution makers, nevertheless, considered it
necessary to make separate provisions in clauses (2) and (3) regarding means of
communication and protection of railways Clause (2), is intended to lay stress on the
overall importance of well-coordinated effective executive action in regard to means of
communications and railways which are so vital for the defence of the country, inter-State
social intercourse, travel, trade and commerce, and incidentally are conducive to national
integration. Further, as the States have exclusive legislative and executive power in respect
of land (vide entry 18 in the State List read with Art. 162), the Constitution framers
appropriately found it necessary in the national interest, for the Union to have control over
the State executive to ensure availability of land for purposes of communication and
protection of railways.
Apart from Arts. 256 and 257(1), a few other constitutional provisions authorize the Centre to
issue directives to the States in several matters falling under their purview.
Communications is a State subject.22 However, under Art. 257(2), the Centre may give
directions to a State as to the construction and maintenance of means of communication
declared in the direction to be of national or military importance.
This, however, does not restrict the power of Parliament to declare highways or waterways to
be national; nor is the Centres power restricted with respect to the national highways or
20
A.D.M., Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla, AIR 1976 SC 1207
21
Sarkaria Commission Report, 103
22
Entry 13, List II,

17
waterways or its power to construct and maintain means of communication as part of its
functions with respect to naval, military and air force works.23
Article 257(3) empowers the Centre to give directions to a State as to the measures to be
taken for the protection of the railways within the State. Railways is a Central subject24 but
Police is a State subject25 and, consequently, the protection of railway property lies within
the field of the State Government. It may be that in a particular situation the Centre may
desire that the railway property be protected by taking special measurers by the State and for
that purpose the Centre has power to give directions to the States.
Explaining the rationale of Arts. 257(2) and 257(3) the Sarkaria Commission has observed:26
Even though clause (1) of Article 257 gives the Union full control over the exercise of the
executive power of every State to ensure that it does not impede or prejudice the exercise of
the executive power of the Union, the Constitution makers, nevertheless, considered it
necessary to make separate provisions in clauses (2) and (3) regarding means of
communication and protection of railways.. Clause (2), . is intended to lay stress on
the overall importance of well-coordinated effective executive action in regard to means of
communications and railways which are so vital for the defence of the country, inter-State
social intercourse, travel, trade and commerce, and incidentally are conducive to national
integration. Further, as the States have exclusive legislative and executive power in respect
of land (vide entry 18 in the State List read with Art. 162), the Constitution-framers
appropriately found it necessary in the national interest, for the Union to have control over
the State executive to ensure availability of land for purposes of communication and
protection of railways.
The Sarkaria Commission has justified the existence of Arts. 256 and 257 in the Constitution
in the following words:
In a two-tier-system of Government, with a single judiciary, where the administration of
Union law is largely secured through the machinery of the States, differences are bound to
arise between the Union and the States in regard to the manner of implementation of Union
laws and the exercise of the Unions executive powers, specially if they conflict with the
23
Entries 4, 23, 24, List I.
24
Entry 22, List I.
25
Entry 2, List II,
26
Sarkaria Commission Report, 103

18
exercise of the executive powers of the State. Articles like 256 and 257 are essential to ensure
harmonious exercise of the executive power by the Union and by the States, in keeping with
the principle of Union supremacy and to enforce this principle, by giving appropriate
directions, in the event of irreconcilable differences on vital issues.27
Besides Article 256 and 257 of the Constitution, the Union has power under Article 339 (2)
of the Constitution to give directions to a State for the preparation and execution of schemes
for the welfare of Scheduled Tribes in the State. Under Article 350A of the Constitution,
directions may be given to a State for providing instructions in the mother tongue at the
primary stage of education to children belonging to linguistic minorities.
When an Emergency declared under Article 352 of the Constitution is in operation, the Union
can, under Article 353(a) of the Constitution give directions to a State as to the manner in
which the executive power of the State is to be exercised. While in normal times, directions
may be given only for specified purposes, during an emergency, directions may be given as
how the executive power of the State is to be exercised. Such a direction may have the effect
of bringing the State Government under the complete control of the Union without
suspending it. It may be noted that even when such directions are given by the Union, the
executive power is to be exercised by the State itself and not by the Union. The Union cannot
by such directions takeover the executive functions of the State.
Article 365 of the Constitution provides for sanction for enforcement of directions. Where
any State has failed to comply with, or to give effect to, any directions given in the exercise
of the executive power of the Union, the President may hold that a situation has arisen in
which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of
the Constitution and the entire administration of the State may be taken over the by Centre
issuing a Proclamation under Article 356.
The Sarkaria Commission further recommended that:
Before issuing a formal direction under the provisions of Articles 256 and 257, the Union
Government should consult the proposed Inter-Government Council and seek its good offices
in settling the points of conflict. We are unable to support this suggestion because it will
dilute the accountability of the Union Government for its actions to Parliament.
27
Id; at 106

19
It further stated that:

It is inescapable that Articles 256 and 257 which give power to the Union Executive to issue
directions to the State and Article 365, without which there would be no sanction for securing
compliance with those directions, are vital for ensuring proper and harmonious functioning
of Union-State relations in accordance with the Constitution. They do not derogate from the
federal principle, rather give effect to it. They provide a technique for ensuring effective
inter-governmental cooperation and maintaining the Rule of Law which are the fundamental
values enshrined in our Constitution.
CHAPTER 4: ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS BETWEEN CENTRE-STATE

WITH RESPECT TO PUBLIC ORDER
Article 355 of the Constitution vests in the Union a very important power to exercise
supervisory control over the States in the maintenance of public order. The maintenance of
public order is primarily the responsibility of the States Government under Article 162 of the
Constitution read with Entry I of the State List. It maintains public order through the agency
of the police, which is the civil force under its command. A duty has, however, been imposed
on the Union to protect every State not only against external aggression but also from internal
disturbance and to ensure that the governance of every State is carried on in accordance with
the provisions of the Constitution. Under this Article, Central intervention is called for when
there is internal disturbance in a State or a failure of Constitutional machinery. The question
arises about when does a situation of law and order end and a situation of internal
disturbances begins. This is a difficult decision to make. Some light may be thrown on the
question if we compare the language of Article 355 of the Constitution with that of Article
352. Under Article 352 of the Constitution as originally enacted, emergency could be
declared when the security of India is threatened by internal disturbance. The words internal
disturbance were substituted by the expression armed rebellion by the 44th Constitutional
amendment. There is no such corresponding provision in Article 355 of the Constitution. In
order to attract Article 355 of the Constitution, there need not be armed rebellion or internal
disturbance of such a magnitude as to threaten the security of India. Internal disturbance may
occur when there is a political upheaval, which the local police force cannot control in in a
State. Such a situation may also arise when the police refuses to do its lawful duty to control
a disturbance or when there is undue interference by political parties in the discharge of the
duties of the police. It is for the Central Government to decide whether there is internal

20
disturbance in a State, but in such a case the Central Government should act with a sense of
circumspection.
One of the major areas of Centre-State confrontation in Indian federal polity relates to Suo
motu deployment of Union armed forces in a State for public order duties. Since the
commencement of the Constitution, the Union Government deployed the Central Reserve
Police Force (CRPF) Suo moto on three occasions, viz., once in Kerala in 1968 for the
protection of its offices and property there during the strike of Central Government
employees, and twice in West Bengal in 1969, for the protection of Farakka Barrage and in
connection with clashes between the workers of the Durgapur Steel Plant and the U.P.
Provincial Armed Constabulory stationed by the Union Government at the Plant. Both Kerala
and West Bengal were then ruled by the opposition parties, and the Congress Government at
the Centre in the first two cases, did not agree with the demand of the State Government for
the withdrawal of the CRPF, but in the third, case, agreed to do so.
"In all these cases," observed Sarkaria Commission, "It seems that care was taken by the
Union Government not to provoke confrontation with the State Governments concerned and
precipitate a constitutional crisis."
However, the fact remains that in all these events there was sharp resistance from the State
Government to suo moto deployment of Union armed forces which resulted in intense Union-
State controversy on the role and use of the CRPF.
The Sarkaria Commission, while identifying major issues in Union-State relations in India
also dealt with this problem in details, in Chapter VII, Part I of its Report.28 In this context,
the Commission had inter-alia, analysed two issues, viz., whether the Union is competent by
virtue of Article 355 to locate and use its armed forces in aid of the State law-enforcement
machinery, and whether Union Government should take unilateral steps or decision either to
quell an internal disturbance without the assistance of the State Government or to declare an
area within a State as "disturbed,' without prior consultation with the State Government.
Constitutional Jurisdictions of Union and States

The Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India makes a clear demarcation of the
operational areas of the Union and the State Governments. Under Entry 1 of List II, public
28
Government of India, Report of the Commission on Centre- State Relations (Chairman: Justice R. S.
Sarkaria), 1988, Part I, Chapter VII, pp. 195-205.

21
order, that is public peace, safety and tranquillity, is primarily the responsibility of the State
Governments.
When there is serious public disorder which threatens the security of the State or of the
country itself, the situation becomes a matter of concern for the Central Government too. For,
Article 355 imposes a duty on the Central Government to protect a State against external
aggression and internal disturbance. By implication, this Article vests in the Union
Government such powers as may be essential for effectively discharging the duty cost on it.
But "internal disturbance", as interpreted by the Sarkaria Commission, is far more serious
than "public disorder" and differs from it in degree as well as kind. The former has the
characteristics of domestic chaos and inter alia endangers the security of the State. It may be
man-made (e.g. a wide-spread and violent agitation or a communal flare-up) or nature-made
(e.g. a natural calamity that paralyses administration in a large area of a State). In the event of
such internal disturbance or of external aggression, the Union Government may discharge its
constitutional obligation by providing assistance to a State Government in the shape of
advice, suggestions, men, material and finance. It may also initiate measures or deploy its
armed forces in aid of the State police and magistracy to deal with the disturbance and restore
public order.
Union Government has a duty to maintain the unity and integrity of the country for which the
responsibility expressly imposed on it to protect every State against external aggression and
internal disturbance vide Article 355. It is for the discharge of this constitutional
responsibility that the Union Government is expected to use its armed forces and if the
situation so demands, may do so suo motu. Entry 2A of List I, clearly implies that
deployment of Union armed forces in aid of the State civil power is a matter entirely for the
Union Government. If the consent of the State Government for such deployment were to be
made a pre-condition, the Union Government would not be able to discharge its duty under
Article 355. The Sarkaria Commission agreed to this as it said:
"It is conceivable that a State Government is unable or unwilling to suppress an internal
disturbance and may even refuse to seek the aid of the armed forces of the Union in the
matter. However, the Union Government, in view of its constitutional obligation, cannot be a
silent spectator when it finds the situation fast drifting towards anarchy or a physical
breakdown of the State administration. In such an unusual, yet not entirely in improbable
events the Union Government may deploy its armed forces suo moto to deal with the
disturbance and restore public order. The phrase "in aid of the civil power" in Entry 2A of

22
List I and Entry 1 of List II signifies that the deployment is in aid of the State charged with
the maintenance of public order. It does not necessarily imply that such deployment should
take place only at the request of the State Government".
Explaining these points further, the Commission observed:
"The use of the armed forces of the Union in the maintenance of public order (Entry 1 of List
II) has always been outside the purview of the States. Even before the insertion of Entry 2 A
in List I by the 42nd Amendment, the Union Government have, by virtue of Entry 2 in List I,
exclusive control over its armed forces and had the power to deploy them in aid of the civil
power whether for maintaining public order or quelling an internal disturbance. What was
implicit in Entry 2 was later made explicit by Entry 2A".
Another type of situation wherein the Union Government, according to the Sarkaria
Commission, may deploy its armed forces, even suo moto, would be when Union property
(e.g. installations, factories, office buildings etc.) situated in a State needs special protection
which the State Government is not able to provide, "Protection of property," as the Sarkaria
Commission elucidates it further," is a function which is ancillary and incidental to the
relevant subjects in the Union List to which the ownership of the property pertains. Such
subjects could be Railways (Entry 22), Ports (Entry 27), Airways (Entry 29). Posts and
Telegraphs (Entry 31), etc. or property of the Union (Entry 32). Besides, the Union
Government is not precluded from conferring on the members of the armed forces so
deployed, such powers of a police officer as would be essential for the purpose of carrying
out the function. The members of the armed forces can then exercise these powers not only
for the protection of Union property but also for dealing with the public disorder in the
proximity of the property if it directly or indirectly endangers the safety of that property or
the employees working there... Exercise of such powers does not mean superseding or
excluding the jurisdiction of the State police".
Centre's Power to Declare an Area within a State as Disturbed

The Sarkaria Commission also considered that the Union Government should not declare a
particular area within a State as "disturbed" without obtaining the prior consent of the State
Government.
The Central enactments, such as the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 confer on
certain authorities, viz., the Governor or the Administrator, within the respective State or the
Union Territory, as the case may be, and also on the President, the power to declare an area in
any of these States or Union Territory as a "disturbed area" if, in the opinion of that authority,

23
the area is in such a disturbed or dangerous condition that it is necessary to use the armed
forces of the Union in aid of the civil power. According to Sarkaria Commission this power
had been used by the Union Government in a State troubled by insurgency or violent public
disturbances, and because of its responsibility to protect a state against such internal
disturbances, the Union Government was competent to assess the situation and decide what
special measures including powers for its armed forces were necessary for dealing with it.
Sarkaria Commission's Recommendations

The Sarkaria Commission has, rightly emphasised the need for cooperation between Union
and State Governments in dealing with public disorder effectively. In this context, the
following observation of the Commission is worth consideration:
"Clearly, the purpose of deployment which is to restore public order and ensure that effective
follow-up action is taken in order to prevent recurrence of disturbances, cannot be achieved
without the active assistance and cooperation of the entire law enforcing machinery of the
State Government. If the Union Government chooses to take unilateral steps to quell an
internal disturbance without the assistance of the State Government, these can at best provide
temporary relief to the affected area and none at all where such disturbances are chronic."
In the light of its above observation and also of its analyses of divergent views on this subject
and relevant constitutional scheme and Union laws and procedures, the Commission made
the following recommendation:
"The existing relationship between the Union armed forces and the State Civil authorities and
the manner of their functioning as prescribed in the relevant Union laws and procedures do
not need any change. However, before the Union Government deploys its armed and other
forces in a State in aid of the civil power otherwise than on request from the State
Government, or declares an area within a State as "disturbed", it is desirable that the State
Government should be consulted, wherever feasible, and its cooperation sought,, even though
prior consultation with the State Government is not obligatory".29
29
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41855468 last accessed on 6th October 2015.

24
CHAPTER 5: VARIOUS MACHINERIES FOR INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CO-

OPERATION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS
India, being a federation, the Constitution establishes dual polity with the union at the centre
and the states at the periphery. The dual government system and the division of powers are
key features of the federal system. As there are two governments existing at same time with
different powers, as conferred by the Constitution, so there is always a possibility of
situations which give rise to conflicts or disputes, may be due to inefficient communication or
lack of coordination. The Indian Constitution provides a scheme of administrative control
exercisable by the Union over the States and it ensures the supremacy of the Union
Executive. But as both the Centre and the States govern the same people, the concept of Co-
operative federalism has been underlined in the Constitution. It provides machinery for inter-
Government Cooperation. The object is sought to be achieved through statutory,
constitutional and extra-constitutional devices.
The Constitution of India has adopted the following techniques of co-ordination between the
Centre and the States
1) Inter-governmental delegation of administrative powers;
2) All-India Services; and
3) Inter-State Council.
Inter-Governmental Delegation of Administrative Powers

Delegation of powers may be done either by agreement or by legislation. While the Centre
may adopt both the methods,30 where as a State can delegate its administrative powers on the
centre only under an agreement with the Centre.31 This delegation process is applicable by
the virtue of Article 258 of Indian Constitution.
(a) Delegation by the Centre as per Article 258

By agreement :-
Article 258 (1) provides that the president may, with the consent of the governor of the state ,
entrust either conditionally or unconditionally, to that government or to its officers, functions
in relation to any matter to which the executive power of the Union extends.
30
Article 258 (1) and Article 258(2)
31
Article 258A.

25
While delegating its functions, the centre may impose conditions and what conditions are to
be imposed, is for the Union to decide. Usually, while entrusting its functions, the centre
reserves to itself power to issue directions to delegate states for the exercise of powers so
delegated. The delegation of the functions has to be with the consent of the concerned state
government. A notification issued by the President under Article 258 (1) entrusting functions
to a state government has been held to be a legislative act.32 Moreover, the delegation under
clause (1) of article 258 may be specific, i.e., to one or more states named therein, or it may
be general i.e. to all the states.
The Supreme Court in Jayantilal Case,33 distinguished between the functions exercisable by
the President on behalf of the union and functions conferred on the President under
expression provision of the Constitution.34
Only the former functions can be delegated under Article 258 (1) and not the latter functions.
It must also be noticed that only an executive function can be delegated under clause (1) of
Article 258, and not a quasi-judicial function.
However in Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab,35 it was clarified that the distinction made by
the Supreme Court in Jayantilal case between the executive functions of the Union and the
executive functions of the President does not lead to the conclusion that the President is not
the constitutional head of Government. Moreover, all the functions exercised of President are
to be exercised with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.36
By legislation ;-
Article 258 (2) A law made by parliament which applies in any state may, notwithstanding
that it relates to a matter with respect to which the Legislature of the State has no power to
make laws, confer powers and impose duties, or authorise the conferring of powers and the
imposition of duties , upon the State or officers and authorities thereof.
Article 258 (2) empowers the Parliament to make laws authorizing the delegation by the
Central government of its powers and functions to the states or officers and authorities in the
States. Such a law may relate to matter to with respect to which the Legislature of the State
32
Jayantilal Amarathlal v. F.N. Rana, AIR 1964 SC 648.
33
Ibid.
34
See Article 123, 124, 217 , 268 to 273, 354 , 356
35
Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1974 SC 2192
36
See Article 74(1)

26
has no power to make laws. Such matters are enumerated on List I and List III of the Seventh
schedule to the Constitution. For example, the Central Sales Tax Act 1956, enacted by the
parliament with respect to Entry92A, List I, delegates to the states authorities the power to
assess and collect sales tax on inter-states sales.
When the functions are entrusted by a State Government to the Government of India, the
latter does not become an agent of the former Government.
Article 258 (3) Where by virtue of this article, powers and duties have been conferred or
impose upon a State or officers or authorities thereof, there shall be paid by the government
of India to the State, such sum as may be agreed, or, in default of agreement, as may be
determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Chief Justice of India, in respect of any extra
costs of administration incurred by the State in connection with the exercise of those powers
and duties.
(b) Entrustment of States powers to the Centre as per Article 258A.

Article 258 A Notwithstanding anything in the Constitution , the governor of a state may,
with the consent of the Government of India, entrust either conditionally or unconditionally ,
to that government or to its officers functions in relation to any matter to which the executive
power of the state extends.
Article 258 A was added by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956.
The object behind the insertion of this provision was to remove any practical difficulty in
connection with the execution of certain development projects in a State.
When the functions are entrusted by a State Government to the Government of India, the
latter does not become an agent of the former government.37
Sarkaria Commission observations and recommendations on Article 258

Sarkaria Commission made following observations:
1. Article 258(1) contemplates a situation where notwithstanding anything in the
Constitution, the President may, with the consent of the State, entrust conditionally or
un-conditionally to the State Government or its officers, functions in relation to any
matter to which the executive power of the Union extends. It is significant that the
entrustment takes place with the consent of the State. The functions which may be
entrusted under clause (1) or Article 258 should relate to a matter with respect to
which the executive power vested in the Union either under the general provision in
37
N.B. Singh v. Duryodhan, AIR 1959 Ori. 48, at p.65.

27
Article 73 or any specific provision (e.g. Article 298) in the Constitution. It does not
authorise the President to delegate those powers and functions with which he is, by
the express provisions of the Constitution, invested as President. Functions of the
Union in relation to a Union Territory, in respect of matters in the Union, State or
Concurrent List can also be entrusted to a State under this provision.
2. Article 258(2) empowers Parliament to enact a law providing for conferring of powers
and imposition of duties or for authorising the conferring of powers and imposition of
duties upon the State or its officers and authorities, notwithstanding the fact that it
relates to a matter with respect to which the legislature of the State has no power to
make laws. Thus, it covers a situation where without a State's consent, powers can be
conferred and duties imposed by a law made by Parliament within its competence,
even if the State legislature has no power to make a law with repect to the subject
matter of the Union law. Powers conferred on Parliament by the Constitution are
plenary and not delegated
3. Article 258 provides two alternative courses for securing the implementation of the
laws and policies of the Union. Under Clause (1), the President may entrust, with the
consent of the State, any of the functions to which the executive power of the Union
extends, Under Clause (2) the entrustment is by law enacted by Parliament. While
executive action to confer powers and duties requires consent of the State
Government, Parliament has the power to determine the appropriate instrumentalities,
whether these belong to the Union or a State or both, for enforcing its laws,
entrustment of powers and duties on a State Government or its officers of authorities
by law by Parliament does not therefore require any consent by the State Government.
4. Clause (2) of Article 258 gives unqualified power to Parliament to enact a law
conferring powers and imposing duties on a State or its officers/authorities, not
withstanding that the law relates to a matter with respect to which the State has no
legislative competence.
It further recommended:
Federalism is more a functional arrangement for co-operative action, than a static
institutional concept. Article 258 provides a tool, by the liberal use of which, co-operative
federalism can be substantially realised in the working of the system. We, therefore,
recommend a more extensive and generous use of this tool, than has hitherto been made, for

28
progressive decentralisation of powers to the Governments of the States and/or their officers
and authorities.38
All India Services

Article 312 introduces an important feature into the Constitution, namely, that besides
separate services for the Union and the States, the Centre can create certain services common
to both.
Besides central and state services, the Constitution under Article 312 provides for the creation
of additional "All-India services" common to both the union and states. The state has the
authority to suspend the officials of All India Services. The power of appointment and taking
disciplinary action against them vests only with the President of India. The idea of having an
integrated well knit All India Services to manage important and crucial sectors of
administration in the country which was the legacy of the past was incorporated in our
Constitution. Their recruitment, training, promotion disciplinary matters are determined by
the central government. A member of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) on entry into
the service is allotted to a state where he/she serves under a state government. This
arrangement wherein a person belonging to the All India Service being responsible for
administration of affairs both at the centre and states. The object is to ensure greater inter-
state co-ordination and implementation of the policies of the Union Government through the
members of these services. It also facilitates the execution of the Union laws in the States.
These services give cohesion to the federal structure and help in achieving greater efficiency
in the administration of the Union and the States. The all-India basis of recruitment attracts
the best available talent in the country to these services.
The raison deter of creating All-India Services is that officers on whom the brunt of the
responsibility for administration will inevitably fall, may develop a wide and all-India
outlook.39
With a view to correcting particularistic trends, and also to secure greater Inter-State
co-ordination for efficient implementation of all-India policies, efforts have been undertaken
towards creation of a few more All-India Services, especially for technical departments, for
the Central and State Governments have to work in very close co-operation in executing
38
Sarkaria Commission Report, Ch. III
39
States Reorganization Commission Report, 232 (1955).

29
important development projects, which necessitates that technical personnel should be trained
and recruited on a common basis.40
Sarkaria Commission observations and recommendations

Sarkaria Commission has found the institution of All-India Service to be as necessary today
as when the Constitution was framed. On the role of the All-India Services, which have
shown themselves capable of discharging the roles that the framers of the Constitution
envisaged for them, it has observed that any move to disband these services or to permit a
State Government to opt out of the scheme must be regarded as retrograde and harmful to the
larger interest of the country. Such a step was sure to encourage parochial tendencies and
undermine the integrity, cohesion, efficiency and co-ordination in administration of the
country as a whole.
It further recommended:
The All-India Services should be further strengthened. This could be achieved through well-
planned improvements in selection, training, development and promotion policies and
methods. The present accent of generalism should yield place to greater specialization in one
or more areas of public administration.
Inter-State Councils
India is a union of states wherein the centre plays a prominent role but at the same time is
dependent on the states for the execution of its policies. The Constitution has provided for
devices to bring about inter-governmental cooperation, effective consultations between the
centre and states so that all important national policies are arrived at through dialogue,
discussion and consensus. One such device is the setting up of the Inter-State Council, along
with Zonal Councils.
Article 263 says for establishment for an, Inter-State Council which may be charged with the
duty of
i. Inquiring into and advising upon disputes which may have arisen between States
ii. Investigating and discussing subjects in which some or all of the states, or the Union
and one or more of the States, have a common interest; or
iii. Making recommendations upon any subject and, in particular, recommendations for
the better co-ordination of policy and action with respect to that subject.
40
Ibid. p. 231

30
The Inter-State council may be established by the President by order, if it appears to the
president that public interest would be served by the establishment of the council. The
President may further define the nature of the duties to be performed by the council, along
with its organisation and procedure to be followed by it.41
Sarkaria Commission recommendations

The proposed Inter-State Council to be set up under Article 263 of the Constitution should be
called Inter-Governmental Council. It should consist of a general body comprising the Prime
Minister as Chairman and all Chief Ministers and all Union Cabinet Ministers. A smaller
Standing Committee should consist of the Prime Minister as Chairman and six Chief
Ministers, one from each zone, elected annually and six Union Cabinet Ministers, to be
nominated by Prime Minister as members.
The general body should meet at least twice a year and the Standing Committee at least four
times. The Council should evolve guidelines for identification and selection of issue to be
brought before it and will make sure that only such matters of national importance relating to
subjects of common interest are brought before it as would fall within the ambit of Article
263 of the Constitution.
Later Developments
In pursuance of the recommendation made by the Sarkaria Commission on Centre- State
Relations, the Inter-State Council (ISC) was set up in 1990.
The ISC is a recommendatory body and has been assigned the duties of investigating and
discussing such subjects, in which some or all of the States or the Union and one or more of
the States have a common interest, and making recommendations for better coordination of
policy and action with respect to that subject. It also deliberates upon such other matters of
general interest to the States as may be referred to it by the Chairman of the Council.
Composition of Council
The Prime Minister is the Chairman of the Council. Chief Ministers of all the States and
Union Territories having Legislative Assemblies, Administrators of Union Territories not
having Legislative Assemblies, Governors of States under Presidents rule and six Ministers
of Cabinet rank in the Union Council of Ministers, nominated by the Chairman of the
Council, are the members of the Council. Five Ministers of Cabinet rank/Minister of State
41
See Article 263

31
(independent Charge) nominated by the Chairman of the Council are permanent invitees to
the Council.42
Duties of Council
The Council is a recommendatory body and performs the following duties-
(a) To investigate and discuss objects of common interests;
(b) To deliberate on such matters.
CHAPTER 6: INTER-STATE WATER DISPUTES (ARTICLE 262)

In India there are many inter-state rivers and their regulation and development has been a
source of inter-state function. These relate to the use, control and distribution of waters of
inter-state rivers for irrigation and power generation. In the Indian Constitution, water-related
matters within a state are included in the state list, while the matters related to inter-state river
waters are in the union list.
Inter-State water disputes broadly relate to the use, control and distribution of waters of inter-
State rivers for purpose of irrigation and the generation of power. The magnitude of the
problem will be apparent from a glance at the list of unsettled disputes and the problem is
likely to become more acute in future.
Keeping in view this problem of unending river water disputes, the Constitution framers
vested the power to deal with it, exclusively in Parliament. The Parliament hence, may by law
provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint, with regard to use, distribution or
control of the waters. The Inter- State Water Disputes Act was enacted by the Parliament in
1956 according to which tribunals are set up for adjudication of water disputes referred to
them.
Article 262 -
(1) Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with
respect to the use, distribution or control of waters of, or in, any inter- state river or river
valley.
42
http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/document/papers/MHA09-10/4.pdf last accessed on 7th October
2015

32
(2) Notwithstanding anything in this constitution, Parliament may by law provide that neither
the Supreme Court or any other court shall exercise its jurisdiction in respect of any such
dispute or complaint as referred to in Clause (1).
In T.N Cauvery Sangam v. Union of India,43 the Supreme Court held that if the central
government had failed to make a reference of the dispute, the Court could, on an application
under Article 32 by an aggrieved party, issue mandamus to the Central Government to carry
out its statutory obligation.
In the exercise of power conferred by Article 262, Parliament has passed the River Board
Act, 1956 and Inter-State Disputes Act, 1956. The former provides for the regulation and
development of Inter-States Rivers and river valleys whereas the latter empowers the Union
government to set up a Tribunal for the adjudication of disputes relating to waters of Inter-
State Rivers or river valleys.
Under the scheme of the Act, negotiations play a very important role. A dispute can be
referred to a tribunal only when it cannot, in the subjective opinion of the Central
Government, be settled by negotiations. Admittedly, settlement by negotiations is the best
possible settlement. It has the consent of the contending parties, leaves no bitterness behind
and can be expected to be implemented faithfully. The process of negotiation has resulted in
the settlement of some disputes. A fairly large number of river valley projects have also been
undertaken by agreement between the Centre and the States.
Sarkaria Commission Recommendations

On the question of Inter-State River Water Disputes the Commission says that:
Once an application under section 3 of the Inter-State River Disputes Act is received from a
State, it should be mandatory on the Union Government to constitute a tribunal within one
year. The Act may be suitably amended for this purpose and also to empower the Union
Government to appoint a tribunal suo moto, if necessary, when it is satisfied that such a
dispute exists in fact. The Act should also be amended to ensure that the award of a tribunal
becomes effective within five years from the date of its announcement. The tribunals award
should have the same force and sanction behind it as order or decree of the Supreme Court to
make it really binding.
43
T.N Cauvery Sangam v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1316

33
CONCLUSION
The above discussion of administrative relation between the Centre and the States reveals that the
Constitution of India has assigned very wide sweep of administrative power to the Union.
Articles 256, 257, 356 and 365 of the Constitution provide a system of comprehensive
administrative control and direction of the States by the Centre. It would, however, be wrong to
get the impression that the States are completely subservient to the Centre since they have their
own powers and status from the Constitution itself. Many conventions have also been evolved
making the States more autonomous in practice than what they would look to be in theory. For
instance, constitutionally speaking, the Centre need not consult the State Government for
administering the matters concerning certain subject in the Concurrent List. And yet, the Centre
has always been consulting the State Government as a matter of convention before taking any
decision on such matters.
Sarkaria Commission report proved to be a path-breaking and revolutionary report in this context.
Several of its recommendations led to change in the constitution as well as other statutes. Various
councils and bodies were formed on basis of its recommendations which has further strong armed
the concept of Co-operative Federalism in India.

34
REFERENCES
Acts/Statutes
1. Constitution Of India, 1950

2. Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958
3. Electricity (Supply) Act, 1956
4. Essential Commodities Act, 1955
5. Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
6. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
7. Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956
Books
1. WADE & PHILIPS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, SEVENTH EDITION
2. JAIN, M.P., INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, SIXTH EDITION (2013 REPRINT),
LEXIS NEXIS BUTTERWORTH WADHWA, NAGPUR
3. CHAUBEY, R.K., FEDERALISM, AUTONOMY AND CENTRE-STATE
RELATIONS, FIRST EDITION (2007), SATYAM BOOKS, DELHI
Cases Referred
1. A.D.M., Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla, AIR 1976 SC 1207
2. A.S. Narayana v. State of West Bengal, 78 C.W.N. 295
3. Bennett Coleman Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106: (1972) 2 SCC 788
4. Bishamber Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1982 SC 33; (1982)
1 SCC 39
5. Jayantilal Amarathlal v. F.N. Rana, AIR 1964 SC 648.
6. K. Co-op. Building Society Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1985 AP 242
7. Madhusoodanan Nair v. State of Kerala, 1983 KLT 43
8. N.B. Singh v. Duryodhan, AIR 1959 Ori. 48
9. Naraindas Indurkhya v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1974 SC 1232; (1974) 4 SCC
788. 12
10. R. Sultan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, ILR 1970 AP 1075
11. Ram Javaya Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, (1955) 2 SCR 225
12. Satwant Singh v. A.P.O., AIR 1967 SC 1836 : (1967) 3 SCR 525

35
13. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 2192

14. Sharma Transport v. Govt. of A.P., AIR 2002 SC 322; (2002) 2 SCC 188
15. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bharat Singh, AIR 1967 SC 1170 : (1967) 2 SCR 454
16. T.N Cauvery Sangam v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1316
Reports
1. Report of the Commission on Centre- State Relations (Chairman: Justice R. S.
Sarkaria), 1988
Websites
1. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/41854204.pdf
5. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4378859.pdf?
6. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41855468.pdf
7. http://interstatecouncil.nic.in/Sarkaria/CHAPTERIII.pdf
8. http://www.prabhaiasips.com/images/pdf/CENTRE/STATE/RELATION.pdf
9. http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/document/papers/MHA09-10/4.pdf
10. http://www.preservearticles.com/2014072233501/administrativerelationsbetweenthec
entreandstatesinindia.html
11. http://www.legalindia.com/criticalanalysisonrelationshipoffaithandtrustbetweencentre
andstate/
12. http://www.casirj.com

Adminsitrative Relations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adminsitrative Relations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

A Project Work In FEDERALISM (HONOURS II)

ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS AND SARKARIA COMMISSION

SUBMITTED TO: Mrs. SHRADDHA RAJPUT

SUBMITTED BY: PRANAV KHANDELWAL

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

Administrative Relations and Sarkaria Commission

Administrative Relations and Sarkaria Commission

Research Methodology .............................................................................................................. 7

Scope and Limitation ................................................................................................................. 7

Research Question ..................................................................................................................... 7

Scheme of Chapterisation .......................................................................................................... 7

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS .......................... 9

CHAPTER 2: DISTRIBUTION OF EXECUTIVE POWER .............................................. 11

CHAPTER 3: POWER OF CENTRE TO GIVE DIRECTIONS TO STATES .................. 14

CHAPTER 4: ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS BETWEEN CENTRE-STATE WITH

Constitutional Jurisdictions of Union and States ............................................................. 20

Centre's Power to Declare an Area within a State as Disturbed ...................................... 22

Sarkaria Commission's Recommendations ...................................................................... 23

CHAPTER 5: VARIOUS MACHINERIES FOR INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CO-

Inter-Governmental Delegation of Administrative Powers ............................................. 24

All India Services ............................................................................................................. 28

Inter-State Councils ......................................................................................................... 29

CHAPTER 6: INTER-STATE WATER DISPUTES (ARTICLE 262) .............................. 31

Sarkaria Commission Recommendations ........................................................................ 32

Administrative Relations and Sarkaria Commission

Cases Referred ..................................................................................................................... 34

Administrative Relations and Sarkaria Commission

Administrative Relations and Sarkaria Commission

Administrative Relations and Sarkaria Commission

SCOPE AND LIMITATION

Administrative Relations and Sarkaria Commission

5. Chapter 5 states about the various machineries for inter-governmental co-operation

Administrative Relations and Sarkaria Commission

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS

Administrative Relations and Sarkaria Commission

Administrative Relations and Sarkaria Commission

CHAPTER 2: DISTRIBUTION OF EXECUTIVE POWER

Administrative Relations and Sarkaria Commission

Administrative Relations and Sarkaria Commission

Administrative Relations and Sarkaria Commission

By reason of Article 298 of the Constitution, executive power also includes:

CHAPTER 3: POWER OF CENTRE TO GIVE DIRECTIONS TO STATES

Administrative Relations and Sarkaria Commission

Administrative Relations and Sarkaria Commission

Administrative Relations and Sarkaria Commission

Administrative Relations and Sarkaria Commission

Administrative Relations and Sarkaria Commission

It further stated that:

CHAPTER 4: ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS BETWEEN CENTRE-STATE

Administrative Relations and Sarkaria Commission

Constitutional Jurisdictions of Union and States

Administrative Relations and Sarkaria Commission

Administrative Relations and Sarkaria Commission

Centre's Power to Declare an Area within a State as Disturbed

Administrative Relations and Sarkaria Commission

Sarkaria Commission's Recommendations

Administrative Relations and Sarkaria Commission

CHAPTER 5: VARIOUS MACHINERIES FOR INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CO-

Inter-Governmental Delegation of Administrative Powers

(a) Delegation by the Centre as per Article 258

Administrative Relations and Sarkaria Commission

Administrative Relations and Sarkaria Commission

(b) Entrustment of States powers to the Centre as per Article 258A.