States are not Centre’s subordinates: Justice B.V. Nagarathna
Justice Nagarathna says the Centre ought to view the States as coordinates and federalism as a constitutional arrangement of co-equals
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
Supreme Court Judge, Justice B.V. Nagarathna, asserted that the Centre cannot treat States as subordinates and must view them as co-equals in the federal structure. Speaking at a law university, she emphasized that political differences should not lead to discrimination against citizens of a State in welfare and development. This statement highlights the growing judicial concern over the quality of fiscal and administrative federalism in India.
UPSC Perspectives
Polity
Justice Nagarathna's speech is a powerful reminder of the foundational principle of cooperative federalism, which is central to the Indian constitutional structure. While the Constitution establishes a strong Centre, it envisages the Union and States as partners in governance, not as a superior and subordinates. The speech critiques the trend of confrontational federalism, where political disputes between the Centre and States are increasingly litigated in courts. Justice Nagarathna pointed out that frequent recourse to the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction under by states against the Centre or each other signifies a breakdown in dialogue and negotiation, which weakens the federal fabric. The UPSC often asks about the nature of Indian federalism and the mechanisms for resolving inter-governmental disputes. This analysis provides a contemporary viewpoint on the need to strengthen non-adversarial mechanisms like the (), which was designed to foster coordination but has often been underutilized.
Governance
From a governance perspective, the core issue is the equitable delivery of public services and welfare, which should be insulated from political contestation. Justice Nagarathna's caution against a "pick-and-choose approach" by the Centre in developmental programs directly impacts citizen welfare. When the release of funds for centrally sponsored schemes or disaster relief is allegedly delayed or denied to states ruled by opposition parties, it undermines the very purpose of governance. This practice can be seen as a violation of the spirit of fiscal federalism and equity. The lecture advocates for the Centre to act as a mentor and mediator, not an instigator of conflict. For UPSC aspirants, this links to the broader themes of governance reforms, ethical governance, and the importance of constitutional morality in administrative actions. It raises questions about accountability and the need for clear, non-discriminatory guidelines for the allocation of central resources to ensure that citizens are not penalized for their electoral choices.
Legal
Legally, the speech underscores the importance of utilizing constitutional mechanisms for dispute resolution beyond adversarial litigation. The speech alludes to complex inter-state disputes that require resolution beyond adversarial litigation, which constitutionally includes issues like water-sharing disputes. This alludes to constitutional provisions like , which empowers Parliament to create tribunals for adjudicating inter-state water disputes and can bar the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The intent behind such articles was to create specialized, negotiated, and technical resolutions. The Judge's call for dialogue and mediation reflects the constitutional design to solve complex federal issues through political and administrative channels first. For UPSC, this perspective is crucial for understanding the separation of powers and the specific roles assigned to different institutions. The courts are a last resort; their overuse in political disputes can lead to judicial overreach and overburdening. The focus should be on revitalizing mechanisms like the and the to make them more effective.