Summary of Punchhi Commission Report

Background

The Punchhi Commission was formed by the Government of India in 2007. It was chaired by Justice Madan Mohan Punchhi. The Commission was focused on Centre-State relations. This revisit on Centre-State relations was aimed to address problems previously investigated by the Sarkaria Commission, which had presented its report in 1988.

The Commission examined and reviewed the Working of the existing arrangements between the Union and States; Various pronouncements of the Courts (with respect to powers, functions, and responsibilities in  legislative/administrative spheres); Role of the Governors; Emergency provisions, Financial relations, Economic and social planning, Panchayati Raj institutions, Sharing of resources including inter-state river water, etc.

Objectives of the Commission

• Evaluating the potential role, responsibility, and jurisdiction of the Centre during significant communal, caste, or other social upheavals.
• Reviewing various aspects of Centre-State relations, such as taxation and the linking of rivers.
• Assessing the necessity of establishing a Central law enforcement agency for initiating Suo moto investigations into crimes with inter-state or international implications that pose a threat to national security.
• Examining the feasibility of deploying Central forces Suo moto in States when deemed necessary.
• Investigating the role and responsibility of the Centre in facilitating the effective devolution of autonomy and powers to Panchayati Raj institutions and other local bodies.
• Supporting independent planning and budgeting at the district level and linking Central assistance to States based on their performance.
• Assessing the relevance of separate taxes to facilitate Inter-state trade and establish a unified domestic market.
• Reviewing the roles and removal procedures of Governors.

Recommendations

The Commission made 273 recommendations in its 7-volume report, with some significant ones outlined below:

• Amendments to Articles 355 and 356: The report proposed amendments to Articles 355 and 356, to safeguard the interests of the States and to prevent their misuse by the Centre. The emphasis was on limiting the Centre’s intervention to specific troubled areas for a brief period, not exceeding 3 months. In essence, the Commission sought to localize the emergency provisions outlined in Articles 355 and 356.
• National Integration Council: Regarding internal security matters, the Commission proposed the establishment of a superior structure, akin to the Homeland Security Department in the US. The Commission suggested that the Council convene at least once a year. Additionally, it recommended a 5-member delegation from the Council to promptly visit any area affected by communal tensions within 2 days.
• Concurrent List Subjects: The Commission suggested that, before introducing Bills on matters in the Concurrent list, the Centre should consult with States through the Inter-State Council.
• Appointment of Chief Ministers of States: The Commission made the following recommendations:
  • Clearly defined guidelines for the appointment of Chief Ministers to limit the discretionary powers of the Governor in this matter.
  • Treat a pre-poll alliance as a single political party.
  • Establish an order of precedence for forming the State Government:
    • The group/alliance with the largest pre-poll alliance having the highest number of seats.
    • The single largest party with support from others.
    • The post-poll alliance with a few parties joining the Government.
    • The post-poll alliance with a few parties joining the Government, including independents providing outside support.

• Pocket Veto of the President: There should be a provision to ensure that the President’s decision on Bill reserved for her consideration is communicated to the State within 6 months.
• Appointment and Removal of Governors: Recommendations for Governors were as follows:
  • The person should have stayed away from active politics, including at the local level, for at least 2 years prior to her appointment.
  • The State Chief Minister should have a say in the appointment of the Governor.
  • The appointment of Governors should be delegated to a Committee. This Committee shall include the Prime Minister, the Home Minister, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Minister of the concerned state. The Vice President may also be involved.
  • The Constitution should be amended to remove the Doctrine of Pleasure.
  • The Governor should be removed only through a resolution passed by the State Legislature.
  • It supported the Governor’s authority to order the prosecution of a Minister despite the advice (to the contrary) of the State Government.
  • It recommended that there be provision for the impeachment of the governor by the state legislature.

• Treaty-Making Power of Union: Regulations should govern the Union Executive’s treaty-making power, especially concerning subjects in the State list. The Commission suggested a greater involvement of States in such treaties.
• Communal Violence Bill: The Commission suggested that the Communal Violence Bill should be amended. It stated that in the event of communal violence, the Central forces would be permitted to temporarily deploy forces in the State without obtaining consent from the state. This is due to the fact that the question of State approval shouldn’t stand in the way of the quick resolution of communal conflict. However, such a deployment shouldn’t take longer than a week, and post-facto consent is to be sought from the State.
• The Commission suggested ending the practice of appointing governors as chancellors of the universities.

The Punchhi Commission’s recommendations were considered by the Inter-State Council’s Standing Committee at its meetings held in April 2017, November 2017, and May 2018.

The Punchhi Commission’s report offered valuable recommendations for ensuring smooth coordination and cooperation between the Union and State Governments. Some of these recommendations, such as appointing Governors from outside the state, have been implemented. To derive the maximum benefit from these guidelines, it is essential to execute them within a robust framework.