Dr Anurag Deep, Professor of Law,
University of Delhi,
prof [on Lein] Indian Law Institute, New Delhi
[This work is divided into two parts. Part 1 deals with the concept of Federalism, and the various issues that are interconnected with good governance under subheads I-V while Part 2 deals with good governance, its meaning, scope, application in India and Jharkhand under subheads VI-VIII]
Part 1 -Federalism
Introduction
When debating the best course to chart in order to achieve the all-round development of any country, scholars and constitutional law pundits have been tempted to suggest one of two systems of government – unitary and federal. The unitary system has only one power centre. There is no significant role of the state unit. There is no distribution or division of power between two units. Indeed, there is no state unit. A good example of this is the United Kingdom. On the contrary, a federal system is one where powers are distributed or divided between the union (also called federal or central) and state units (also called province). Federalism in its crude form has been traced to the ancient Hindu scriptures1 the ancient Greece and Rome. One of the major concurring principles of political import which informs and encompasses three themes is federalism, viz “an idea that defines political justice, shapes political behaviour and directs humans towards an appropriately civic synthesis of the two.” Be it unitary or federal “the good governance approach of administering states should ideally focus on the principles of transparency and accountability.” Which one is better depends on multiple factors. In 1947, India faced two choices – to either adopt a unitary system akin to that of the twentieth century UK, or to follow the distribution of power between two units like those of the USA, Canada or Australia. As India was colonised by the British, who have traditionally upheld unitary values of governance, a unitary system could have been a strong choice. However, the architects of the Constitution of India thought that federalism would be the better choice for good governance for two reasons. The first would be India’s legal history. The Government of India Act, 1935 already provided for the creation of federal and provincial legislatures. The subject matters were divided between List I, List II, and List III. In other words, India already had a system in place. The second reason relates to differing comparative views. Geographically, India is approximately thirteen times larger than the UK. The population of India in 1947 was around 340 million while that of the UK was around 48 million, making India seven times larger than the UK even in terms of population size. A small country like the United Kingdom, with a relatively small population, could be governed by a unitary system. The diversity due to religion, region, caste, language, race etc is not as acute in the UK as it is in India. For a considerably large country like India, especially one populated by a veritable melting pot of cultures, the big question would be: would it be feasible to provide good governance by concentrating power at one hand? The framers thought (and rightly so) that the sharing of power between state and Union, leading to a federal system, would be more conducive to good governance. Once decided, they had the federal models of the USA, Canada and Australia to draw inspiration from. However, the framers did not stick to any one model. Taking lessons from all of them, they presented a unique model for India which has sometimes been termed as “quasi federal” or “uni-federal”. A brief survey of the Constituent Assembly will shed some light on why the framers thought of a special type of federal system that deviated from the other forms of federalism.
Federalism and the Constituent Assembly
Dr. Ambedkar, while introducing the Motion re Draft Constitution on 4th Nov. 1948, said:
A student of constitutional law if a copy of a constitution is placed in his hands is sure to ask two questions. Firstly what is the form of Government that is envisaged in the constitution; and Secondly what is the form of the constitution?
As his answer to the first question, he informed that India was to form a parliamentary system of government as we had become accustomed to it during the British Raj. Answering the second question, he observed:
The Draft constitution is, federal Constitution in as much as it establishes what may be called a Dual Polity. This Dual Polity under the proposed Constitution will consist of the Union at the centre and the states at the periphery each endowed with sovereign powers to be exercised in the field assigned to them respectively by the Constitution. (Emphasis supplied.)
Dr. Ambedkar avowedly admitted that the draft presented by him envisaged a federal form of constitution. But what is very interesting is that nowhere in the Draft Constitution presented (or even in the present constitution), have the words ‘federal’ or ‘federation’ been used. On the contrary, the phraseology figured under Art. 1 has described India as the Union of States. It is a fact that the constitution desires to give states less power than the centre. Dr. Ambedkar has also accepted this fact in the Constituent Assembly Debates especially while dealing with Article 1.
Power sharing with States and First Draft of the Constitution
Sri BN Rau, the adviser of the Constituent Assembly, wanted to provide a greater share of power to states vis a vis the Union. It seems BN Rau thought that for good governance of this big country, more power ought to be granted to the states, the way it is granted in the USA or Australia, or Canada. In the USA and Australia the residuary power is granted to the states while in Canada, residuary power stays with the Parliament. He desired to assure the states that they will have full autonomy, since British India had more than 600 different units of various characters which wanted to “come together,” and make India a bigger and stronger country, without losing their identity and sovereignty. BN Rau wanted to assure the states that they would have complete autonomy and the bargain in “coming together” would be substantially beneficial to them. It seems he was of the view that such a federation with more power to states would be favourable to good governance. Two examples can be advanced to understand the intention of BN Rau. Firstly, in the draft proposal, he used the words “federal” and “federation” in several provisions of the draft constitution because he wanted the federal nature of the constitution to be expressly acknowledged. Secondly, Sri Rau desired to give states a decisive role in case of changes to the boundaries, name, and areas of the state, which is currently decided as per Art. 3. In his Draft proposal every concerned state had to give its “consent” in case of any change in its geography, name etc. while in the present Constitution only "views" are solicited. According to the proposal of BN Rau, the inference can be drawn that for good governance he wanted to make states more powerful. The following chart makes this distinction amply clear. Part I of this draft contained three Articles mentioned as under-
A comparative chart of use of words in the Initial and Final Draft of the constitution of India: An indicator of power sharing of state vis a vis centre
(Emphasis supplied.)
But as mentioned earlier the "First Draft of the Constitution of India" i.e. objective resolution, was not accepted by the Drafting Committee. A revised draft was produced before the Constituent Assembly in which India was described as the Union of States.
Constitution Commands a Strong Centre vis a vis State
Giving clarification to this paradox, Dr. Ambedkar opined that the use of the word “Union” was deliberate. According to him this shows that
Our federation was not a result of any agreement or pact by the states and
No state can claim any right to secede from it.
In the words of Dr. Ambedkar:
Some critics have taken objection to the description of India in Article 1 of the Draft Constitution as a Union of States. It is said that the correct phraseology should be Federation of States. It is true that South Africa, which is a unitary state, is described as a Union. But Canada which is a federation is also called a Union. Thus the description of India as a Union, though its constitution is federal, does no violence to usage. But what is important is that the use of the word Union is deliberate. I do not know why the word "Union" was used in the Canadian Constitution. But I can tell you why the Drafting committee has used it. The Drafting Committee wanted to make it clear that though India was to be a federation, the federation was not the result of an agreement by the states to join in a federation and that federation not being the result of an agreement no state has the right to secede from it. The Federation is a Union because it is indestructible. (Emphasis supplied).
He added:
Though the country and the people may be divided into different states for convenience of administration the country is one integral whole, its people a single people living under a single imperium derived from a single source. The Americans had a wage a civil war to establish that the states have no right of secession and that their federation was indestructible. The Drafting committee thought that it was better to make it clear at the outset rather than to leave it to speculation or to dispute (Emphasis supplied.)
The abovementioned paragraphs of Dr. Ambedkar exhibit his concern regarding secessionist tendencies, which could disintegrate the unity of India. By incorporating federal features. he endeavoured to ensure power sharing by states, but this power sharing is only to a limited extent. It is never like the USA. In the Indian political system this power sharing must respect the dominance of the union over states because it is the command of the Constitution of India. In other words, Dr. Ambedkar rejected the idea of “coming together” (where states have more power and there is a high risk of secession). His idea was closer to “holding together” where the centre unit is more powerful and has a minor risk of succession. Indeed, Dr. Ambedkar wanted a federation with zero risk of secession because secessionist tendencies are against good governance. The secessionist thoughts are based on narrow ideas of religion, region, language etc where minorities have to struggle hard for equal opportunity, dignity and liberty. Good governance does mean conforming to the values of democracy, rule of law, and constitutionalism (as discussed in next paragraphs) and it is possible in a country which is internally as well as externally strong, stable and sovereign.
V. Power Sharing is Distinct from the USA
Prof. Wheare in his classic work ‘Federal Government’, projects the USA as an ideal form of federalism. Federation is a form of constitution where powers are distributed between the centre and state units. The nature of this distribution is such that both units, centre and states, are independent in their sphere.
Prof. Wheare calls this type of distribution as ‘federal principle’. In his own words:
By federal principle I mean the method of dividing powers so that the general and regional governments are each, within a sphere, co-ordinate and independent.
In the constitution of India, the powers are distributed between Union and state on the basis of Schedule VII read with Art. 246. The distribution, however, is not based on federal principle as the Centre has been given more power than states. On the basis of his ‘federal principle’, Prof. Wheare prefers to call the Constitution of India ‘quasi-federal. This is also why Prof. S.K. Verma (BHU) calls it Uni-federal or other constitutional experts call our constitution as ‘federal with unitary feature’ or ‘sui generis’ etc. This unique nature of our constitution is beyond dispute. It is also beyond doubt that there is a considered departure from the traditional model or US model of federalism.
As submitted earlier, India had adopted a federal political system that had two tiers of government: the national level and the state level. Another level of panchayats and municipalities i.e a third tier was added post the enactment of the 73rd and 74th Amendments in 1992. This was done to expand the idea of good governance at the local level as promised under Article 40 of the Constitution of India.
Part 2- Good governance
VI. Governance and good governance
“Governance refers to all processes of governing, the institutions, processes and practices through which issues of common concern are decided upon and regulated. Good governance adds a normative or evaluative attribute to the process of governing.” Good governance is a very wide term. It has received spiritual as well as temporal meaning. AM Khanwilkar, a retired judge in the Supreme Court of India dilates on spiritual approach and invokes the wisdom from Bhagwat Gita as under:
Good governance or so to say righteous administration, is also expounded in Bhagwat Gita. It emphasises on virtues that are indispensable for righteous administration- to wit, unagitated mind, firm mindedness, contentment with one’s own duty, indifference to pleasure and pain, being the same towards friend and enemy and towards honour and disgrace. All these allow an administrator to perform higher duty in the most ethical manner, which in contemporary times is recognised as “Rule of Law.”
The Arthashastra invokes the significance of good governance, the rule of law, the protection of the rights and well-being of citizens. It highlights the duties of the king towards his subjects. The duties include to ensure the security, economic prosperity, and overall welfare of his subjects by insisting on the need for fair and impartial administration of justice.
प्रजा हि लोकस्य मूलम्, राजा प्रजानां मूलम्।
Prajā hi lokasya mūlam, rājā prajānāṃ mūlam.1.19.34. 9.
The subjects are the root of the kingdom, and the king is the root of the subjects.
The temporal approach may be found in the 1989 report of the World Bank” where the phrase good governance finds first significant mention. “Good governance is more than putting constitutional limits to the power of the government.” This concept “covers more than mere administrative reforms in the conventional sense of the terms. Good governance has much to do with ethical grounding and firm adherence to certain moral values and principles.” The thrust area is not administration but the common mass. In this sense good governance is a word which we understand but cannot define precisely. It is better to begin with a description from some documents of the United Nations. UN-OHCHR describes it as under:
Good governance is the process whereby public institutions conduct public affairs, manage public resources and guarantee the realization of human rights in a manner essentially free of abuse and corruption, and with due regard for the rule of law. The true test of 'good' governance is the degree to which it delivers on the promise of human rights: civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights.
This description indicates that good governance is a very wide term and encompasses the values of the constitution. Civil and political rights (as well as cultural rights) are guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution and both union and state units are responsible to preserve and protect these rights. Economic and social rights are recognised under Part IV of the Constitution of India and some of them are now guaranteed under Part III also, viz equal pay for equal work under Article 39 are part of fundamental rights. Good governance ensures that corruption is minimised, the views of minorities are taken into account and that the voices of the most vulnerable in society are heard in decision-making. It is also responsive to the present and future needs of society. It is rightly observed that “good governance includes full respect of human rights, the rule of law, effective participation, multi-actor partnerships, political pluralism, transparent and accountable processes and institutions, an efficient and effective public sector, legitimacy, access to knowledge, information and education, political empowerment of people, equity, sustainability, and attitudes and values that foster responsibility, solidarity and tolerance.” The United Nations has identified eight major characteristics of good governance, which may be reproduced as under:
Participation- Participation by both men and women is a key cornerstone of good governance. Participation could be either direct or through legitimate intermediate institutions or representatives. Participation needs to be informed and organised. This means freedom of association and expression on the one hand and an organised civil society on the other hand.
Rule of Law- It requires full protection of human rights, particularly those of minorities, and impartial enforcement of laws.
Transparency- Transparency means that decisions taken, and their enforcement are done in a manner that follows rules and regulations. It also means that information pertaining to these decisions and their enforcement is freely available and directly accessible to those who will be affected by them.
Responsiveness- Good governance requires that institutions and processes try to serve all stakeholders within a reasonable timeframe.
Consensus oriented- There are several actors and as many viewpoints in a given society. Good governance requires mediation of the different interests in society to reach a broad consensus in society on what is in the best interest of the whole community and how this can be achieved.
Equity and inclusiveness- A society’s well-being depends on ensuring that all its members feel that they have a stake in it and do not feel excluded from the mainstream of society. This requires all groups, but particularly the most vulnerable, have opportunities to improve or maintain their well-being.
Effectiveness and efficiency- The concept of efficiency in the context of good governance covers the sustainable use of natural resources and the protection of the environment.
Accountability- In general, an organisation or an institution is accountable to those who will be affected by its decisions or actions. Accountability cannot be enforced without transparency and the rule of law.
VII. Four Areas of Good governance
At another place the United Nations has recognised four areas regarding good governance, viz democratic institutions, public service delivery, rule of law and anti-corruption strategies. They may be discussed as under-
Democratic Institutions- Democratic institutions must provide avenues for participation in policymaking. Democracy does not mean electoral democracy where the role of the citizen is limited to casting votes or standing in elections. Good governance requires greater participation post elections. This can be done either through formal institutions like National Institution for Transforming India (NITI) Ayog or GST Council etc. They should be places which provide ample opportunities for dialogue between central and state units and party politics should have minimal role to play. Another way is informal consultation like those through social media. For instance, the ministries and offices should also communicate through public directly or through social media. Janta Darbar is one such classical example and Man ki Baat is another, more modern, illustration. Greater participation with democratic institutions like the Parliament and state legislature, the union as well as state executives and with the judiciary can also be established through technology. Apps have become an easy source for the people to approach the institutions. The Government at centre as well as states levels have come up with various technical tools and apps to connect with people. The central government has come up with an “E-gov app store” which provides 57 applications in 26 sectors for various schemes. Similarly the Government of Jharkhand has 13 such live applications. One such app is MGNREGA App. MGNREGA is a central enactment and APP is available at Jharkhand government website. Another example of cooperation can be https://cybercrime.gov.in/ of the central government where a citizen can register a complaint and the same is forwarded to the states. There are numerous such illustrations which show a bonding and cooperation between central and state units. They are illustrations of cooperative federalism and good governance. However, what is more significant is the actual working of these technological tools and the enforcement after that. A few apps are not updated. The complaints to cybercrime portal in many cases do not result in catching the cyber criminal and recovery of property, if any. This is an area where all state governments, especially the Jharkhand government need to work hard because many cyber frauds originate from Jharkhand, though Rajasthan is also gaining a bad name.
Public Service Delivery- This deals with the capacity of the state to discharge its obligations to provide for public goods. These obligations are guided by Directive Principles of the State Policies in India which under Article 37 mandates the government that these directives are “fundamental in the governance”. The central government has provided a list of fifteen public services where the online tools (https://services.india.gov.in/category/listing?ln=en) can be accessed. They serve the people at local level through various online services. Take for example “Electricity, Water and Local services”- https://services.india.gov.in/service/listing?cat_id=3&ln=en. This central government portal contains the services in the states. For example, services at Jharkhand can be accessed here. Social security pension, welfare scheme, law department, transport department etc in Jharkhand can be accessed here. This is another example of how both the central and state government work together for good governance and realise the dream of cooperative federalism.
Education and Health: Good governance
Education and health are two crucial public services besides employment. Originally. education was in the state list ie List II. The framers of the Constitution thought that good governance in the area of education could be best served by the states. But in 1976, through the 42nd Amendment, education was shifted from the state list to concurrent list ie List III. From 1950-1976, for 26 years, the state had exclusive power to legislate on matters of education. However, it was found that there were serious problems in governing and delivering quality education at state level. Politics, lack of funds, mismanagement of resources etc crippled the growth of education at the state level. The 42nd Amendment diluted the power of the states and the Union was empowered to share this subject also. It is interesting to note that after forty-six years this amendment has been challenged in 2022 in the Madras High Court on the ground that the such transfer of “education” from state list to concurrent list is violative of the federal set up. This federal set up has been declared as a part of basic structure theory of the constitution in SR Bommai case. The Union has argued that because of this amendment the Parliament was able to pass the Right to Education Act, 2009 which has helped the states make primary education accessible to all. According to the central government, the intervention by the central government has paved the way for good governance in the area of primary education and this author agrees with this opinion of the central government and the petition has little legal weight.
Encroachment by the centre in the state domain is sometimes invited because of mis governance. Primary education run by the state is hardly known for quality teaching, though the teachers are very highly qualified with the best of salaries and facilities. The burgeoning demand for private schools corroborates this claim. Even the children of the family of lawmakers, policy makers and academic thinkers do not go to the primary schools run by the government subject to distinguished exceptions. Thankfully in the last decade or so the situation has shown positive signs but they do not repose much confidence. The Centre cannot be blamed for the quality of primary education because the states have full authority to decide. Jharkhand state should learn from the schools run by Delhi government. Good governance in the area of primary education is a challenge we are facing for the last seventy years. Without changing it the country can not make much difference at grass root level.
For a longer period, the guardians and the students in Bihar (now Bihar and Jharkhand) had to move to Banaras Hindu University (BHU- a central university) for higher education with some quality inputs. This author and many like this author had to migrate to central universities of BHU, Delhi University, Aligarh Muslim University etc. Indeed, in the student days of this author colleges like UP College, Varanasi, CPM Degree College, Allahabad, Ewing Christan College, Allahabad were preferred education destinations because formal education like BA, BSc, MA etc was considered better than that offered in Ranchi University, or Colleges in Ranchi, Bokaro, etc in Jharkhand. The AIIMS, IITs have far greater reputations and reliability than those of RIMS, and NITs in Jharkhand or any other states. The challenge of good governance before any state (in this case Jharkhand) is to establish Ranchi University, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag and Colleges like those in Bokaro, Jamshedpur as Universities of great repute because they serve the common mass. In the time of privatisation of education, it has become imperative that state funded educational institutions survive and thrive for better delivery of their services. This is possible when the leadership of these academic institutions is in the hands of those who have proven ability in the areas of higher education and research. The states (Jharkhand here) should be alert to the mismanagement of funds allocated to the Universities and colleges. It can also develop a strong pool of alumni, involve them and encourage them to create endowment funds. These universities and colleges ought to be encouraged to participate in the UGC driven measures, rankings etc.
Health
Health is another service which has been in the state list since 1950 and still continues to be so, though the Fifteenth Finance Commission (2021) suggested that health should also be moved to the concurrent list. The reason given is that “would give the Centre greater flexibility to enact regulatory changes and reinforce the obligation of all stakeholders towards providing better healthcare.” If this is done, this would be another blow to the exclusive authority and autonomy of the states, but this will again be an invited and compelling intervention by the centre. States have failed miserably in the health sector. The reasons are similar to those in the case of education ie corrupt practices, mismanagement of resources, weak prosecution of the culprits etc. The crisis precipitated by Covid-19 has shown how the health system in India is not equipped to address the needs of emergency. States and the Centre tried to work together but there was greater reliance on central government, even though health is a state subject. Government hospitals in states need better governance. On a personal note, this author can state that the Bokaro General Hospital, Jharkhand, though administered by the Steel Authority of India Limited, Government of India, was a famous hospital but lost its significance with the passage of time. The ultimate victims are the poor and rural population. It is the joint responsibility of the state and centre to protect, preserve and promote such enterprises through good governance. The Central government has opened new AIIMS, and campaigned for Swachh Bharat Abhiyan etc which directly deals with health subjects and primary responsibility of states. The central government helped the state government during the Covid vaccination drive. This author suggests like many others that health should be in the concurrent list.
Rule of Law- It is an essential parameter. The UN document reads “Good governance initiatives may include advocacy for legal reform, public awareness-raising on the national and international legal framework, and capacity-building or reform of institutions.”
Good governance prospers if there is rule of law. The main focus in this is legislative reform. Reform is a continuous process. Central government has repealed around 1800 old laws and 1500 are likely to be repealed in 2022-2023. Similarly Uttar Pradesh repealed 800 laws. Jharkhand state should also consider reforms in laws and repealing unnecessary and old laws.
The second important point under rule of law is whether the states cooperate with each other in the penal system. In the Constitution the Penal law is in concurrent list but law and order is a matter of state list. However, under Article 355 it is the duty of the Union to protect states against external aggression and internal disturbance. Therefore, the Centre passes special laws on terrorism which is applied on Naxal violence. India has central penal laws, Special penal laws like UAPA, 1967, Preventive detention laws etc. Both centre and state use these laws.
We also have agencies like NIA, CBI which provide dedicated officials to enforce laws and help in preventing as well as punishing heinous crimes. Despite all criticism (some of them have sound basis) CBI and NIA have better records than the State agencies. In many cases the public demands CBI inquiries and the States themselves request the CBI to take over cases. There is greater faith on central agency because they are more effective than state agencies. Indeed an effective investigation agency (like CBI or NIA) is crucial to the rule of law. The conviction rates of CBI and NIA are far better. Such an effective agency also fosters human rights jurisprudence. Unfortunately, the states are lacking in taking reformative measures. If we take an example, in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Jharkhand, many seats at the district judiciary level are vacant. It was remedied to a certain extent through the insistence and persistence of the former CJI Justice Ranjan Gogoi, who took personal interest in the matter of appointment in judiciary. For good governance it is essential that the vacancies must be filled as early as possible. Jharkhand state should emerge as a model in this area. The government of Jharkhand should advertise the posts after doing homework on reservation policy, examination pattern etc. High Courts should also not interfere and grant stay unless there is something very serious.
Anti- Corruption- Corruption is one of the biggest challenges for good governance. There are various agencies at the centre and states. As we all know, corruption is the evil which undoes all the efforts done by governance, it is desirable that both agencies at both levels should work together. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Enforcement directorate is a central agency which is more equipped to deal with corruption though it is controversial. states have alleged that CBI and ED is being misused by centre against states.
CBI is a central agency but it cannot interfere without the consent of the state. It has two types of consent. General consent and special consent. When a state gives general consent CBI can interfere any time. In specific consent it may interfere with the state in corruption cases only in special matters after taking consent of states. In the last few years general consent given by states have been withdrawn on charges of nepotism, harassment to state government officials. Such charges and allegations may be true or false. The way out is that whenever the states feel that there is “witch hunting” in the name of CBI or ED, the states should request the centre to set up a Special team to monitor under a retired judge of the Supreme Court or high court which shall directly report to the judicial collegium ie Chief Justice of India and four senior most judges or the judicial collegium of the high court of that state. The Centre should agree on it and indeed the Union Home Ministry can issue a notification to this effect. If the Centre does not agree, the Supreme Court or the respective high courts should do it suo motu or on application of the aggrieved state. The question remains what will happen when the opposition in states makes similar allegations of “witch hunting” by state police machinery, anti-corruption branch of state etc.
Similarly IMF has also suggested its model of good governance which centres around improving the management of public resources through various institutional reforms like treasury, central bank, civil service etc. They also lay emphasis on the issues which have already been touched upon.
VIII. Conclusion
To evaluate good governance there is a formula which can be called TEA. i.e transparency, responsibility, accountability (TEA). Since 2014, the Government of India has started celebrating good governance day on December 25 on the birth anniversary of former-Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. The idea is to transform governance into e-governance and then to m-governance. The focus of the government is to incorporate technology in the governance. Technology is key to TEA. For these three ie TEA, the states need not always be dependent on the Centre. The states can rely on e-governance in the age of technology. The Centre should encourage and facilitate it. The Central government has also introduced a “good governance index” to inculcate healthy competition among all states and to learn from good practices. There are institutes which are established by the Central government like the Centre for Good Governance, National Centre for Good Governance, etc. The working of these institutions and their outcome may be useful to state governments. State governments, especially the Jharkhand government, NUSRL, and other stakeholders in Jharkhand should conduct research in the area of good governance and come up with concrete ideas which can be implementable.
Good governance is a chariot, of which the two wheels are the Centre and states. The Centre should not think that the states are its subordinates. By granting funds, the Centre is not granting any charity to states but the Centre is discharging its obligations. The proper utilisation of funds, enforcement of schemes and the laws need monitoring by the Union because ultimately it is the money of “we the people”. The states should not behave as if they are equally sovereign just because they have been voted by the people of the states. While states have to look into the interest of the state, the union has to serve national interest. States must understand that it is the national interest that prevails. The Centre is deliberately made more powerful not only in the time of crisis or emergency but also in times of peace because national interest has to be protected. The cordial, cooperative, congenial relations between the centre and states, healthy competition between states can pave the way to good governance.
