Context: The Supreme Court’s intervention in disputes between the Centre and state governments over fund disbursement highlights the complexities of federal governance in India.

• The recent hearing involving the Karnataka government’s plea for financial assistance underscores the growing trend of states resorting to judicial recourse in matters of inter-governmental conflict.

Indian federalism is significant for several reasons

• Accommodation of diversity: Federalism in India allows for the accommodation of diversity by giving autonomy to states to govern their own affairs and address their unique needs and concerns.

• Effective governance: A robust federal structure needs to be in place to deliver effective governance and to ensure that the diverse needs and interests of the states are represented in the decision-making process.

• Promotion of democracy: Federalism promotes democracy by ensuring that power is decentralized and shared between different levels of government. This allows for greater participation and representation of citizens in the decision-making process.

• Protection of rights: Federalism allows for more robust protection of individual and minority rights as state governments are better able to address the specific needs and concerns of their diverse populations and can tailor policies and legislation accordingly.

The Court’s Call for Restraint

• During the hearing, the Supreme Court, represented by Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, urged both the Centre and state governments to refrain from turning disputes into contests.

• This appeal reflects the Court’s concern over the increasing frequency of such disputes being brought before it.

Dispute over Drought Relief Funds

• The case in question involved the Karnataka government accusing the Centre of failing to release financial assistance from the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) for drought management.

• The state, represented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, argued that the Centre had not acted within the mandated timeframe to provide assistance, leading Karnataka to approach the Court.

Centre’s Response and Allegations

• In response, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, questioned the timing of Karnataka’s plea, implying political motives due to the proximity to the Lok Sabha elections.

• He suggested that the matter could have been resolved through direct communication between the state and the Centre.

Growing Trend of State Appeals

• The Supreme Court observed a pattern of various state governments approaching it seeking relief against the Centre in matters related to fund disbursement.

• This observation underscores the broader issue of inter-governmental conflicts becoming increasingly common and contentious.

Broader Implications

• The Karnataka case is not an isolated incident, as other states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala have also approached the Court with similar grievances against the Centre.

• These disputes raise significant constitutional questions regarding the balance of power between the Union and state governments, highlighting the need for judicial clarity on such matters.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court’s involvement in disputes between the Centre and state governments underscores the challenges of federal governance in India.

• As conflicts over fund disbursement persist, the Court’s role in adjudicating these disputes becomes increasingly crucial in upholding the principles of cooperative federalism and ensuring effective governance.