Need for Reforming the Seventh Schedule State demands for | CSE MAINS BOOSTER

Need for Reforming the Seventh Schedule

State demands for greater autonomy

Erosions of division of functions:

For example, the constitution of the Planning Commission in 1951,
Shifting of the subjects like forest and education from the state to the Concurrent List by the 42nd
Amendment, etc.

Grievances regarding the allocation of residuary powers with the Centre: For ex: Rajamannar
Committee in Tamil Nadu, 1969 and the Anandpur Sahib Resolution in Punjab in 1973 recommended
transferring several entries to the State List, both from the Union and Concurrent Lists, and vesting
residuary powers in the States.

Need for decentralization:

Despite the 73rd and 74th Constitutional amendments, except in a few states,
there has been little progress at decentralisation—to both rural and urban local bodies.

The functions assigned are unclear, funds uncertain and inadequate, and decision-making
functionaries are mostly drawn from the state bureaucracy.

Changing Governance need: A subject that was vital for legislative allocation in 1950 may no longer be
relevant in the present. Concerns such as climate change and emerging technologies amongst others, while not conceivable at the time of constitutional drafting have now become imperatives of governance.

Centrally sponsored schemes should be flexible enough to allow states to adapt and innovate.

Recommendations of Sarkaria Commission (1988)

Residuary powers be transferred from the Union List to the Concurrent List, except for the residuary power to impose taxes which should be retained in the Union List.

States should be consulted by the Centre before the latter exercises its power over Concurrent List
entries.

Centre should limit the field it occupies with respect to Concurrent List entries to only as much as is
necessary for ensuring uniformity in basic issues of national policy.