Centre Vs States: Tail can't wag the dog !

Centre Vs States: Tail can’t wag the dog !

Centre Vs States: Tail can’t wag the dog !


The floods waters of acrimony between some of the States and the Centre indeed, have been rising at the alarming rate

The floods waters of acrimony between some of the States and the Centre indeed, have been rising at the alarming rate. This can only be the conclusion from the oft repeated tug of war situation between the governments at higher and lower levels.

The makers of the Constitution of India provided a fair space for both, the Centre and the States while dealing with the power of governance. Therefore, in the Constitution, under VII schedule, 3 lists namely, Union List, State List and Concurrent List were incorporated. These lists clearly lay down the boundaries for exercising powers over several subjects by the Centre, States and both. There is hardly any ambiguity left in the arrangement.

Obviously, these provisions have been aimed at ensuring the spirit of Federalism between the Centre and the States. However, in the recent days, the spirit of federalism seems to have evaporated and its place seems to have been taken by fissiparous tendencies and secessionists virus. There can be no exaggeration in drawing the conclusion that all that is passed by way of legislations or done by the Central government of present dispensation has been opposed tooth and nail by the State governments ruled by the opposition parties.

Be it the Award Wapsi, Tukde-Tukde and pro-Afzal Guru slogans or prolonged CAA-NRC agitation right under the nose of the Centre were aimed at achieving the goal of over-powering the Central government and challenging the authority of the parliament and constitutional position holders including the judiciary. Seen in this context, the ongoing so-called farmers' agitation is nothing but an another attempt to defame the country before global community and create a situation of lawlessness and anarchy.

Such a situation is akin to the tail wagging dog. This cannot be tolerated in a country wedded to the principles of federalism and integration or rather integration through federalism. As long as the parliament has not enacted a law, the States can rightly offer suggestions to the law makers at the Centre. But once a law has been passed by the parliament and after receiving the consent of the President is notified in the official gazette, the same becomes binding 'on all' people of all the States.

There cannot be any question of opposing a centrally enacted statute by way of passing a resolution that a particular State will not obey the central law. In simple terms, such an act may be termed as anti national and an open challenge to the constitutionally elected central government, the parliament and other bodies responsible for the enforcement of laws including the judiciary.

Considering the gravity of situation, it is necessary that the concerned Constitutional authorities responsible for upholding the Constitution and ensuring the Rule of Law in the country exercise due vigilance and ensure that any defiance to the Constitution or the authorities created under it is not taken lightly and the offenders are promptly punished severely.


The Supreme Court while clarifying the legal position on the right of the accused to get anticipatory bail for the offence of 'Triple Talaq', hailed that that there is no bar in granting anticipatory bail for an offence committed under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 provided that the complainant, a Muslim woman is heard by the competent court before granting such bail. The judgment was delivered by a bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud.


The Telangana High Court in its recent judgment delivered by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Raghavendra Singh Chauhan and Justice B Vijaysen Reddy held that the banks must hear the account holder before declaring an account to as fraudulent or the account holder as 'the holder of fraudulent account'.

Rejecting the argument of the Reserve Bank, that applying principles of natural justice will defeat the requirement of urgency, the court observed that the banks must differentiate between 'urgency' and 'hearing' before declaring an account as 'fraud'. This Judgment was delivered in the case of Rajesh Agarwal vs RBI and others.


Apparently annoyed over the State government's decision to permit late night revelries in the bars and restaurants on the New Year day in the present COVID-19 situation, the High Court chided the government for its unexplainable decision.

The bench hearing a score of PILs observed that when in some parts of the country night curfew has been imposed in the wake of the spread of corona virus, the state government ought to have no granted any permission to celebrate the arrival of the New Year on a massive scale.

It is ironical that on the one hand the health department of the state government advises against people gathering in large numbers while on the other, the state government allows people to celebrate in large numbers in the bars and restaurants. The court directed the Advocate General to file a report about the measures adopted by the government to tackle the pandemic situation.


Keeping in tune with the recommendations of the Supreme Court collegium and the Union Cabinet, the President of India accorded approval to the appointment of new Chief Justices for the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana on December 31.

Accordingly, the present incumbent Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari has been appointed as the Chief Justice of Sikkim High Court whereas the Chief Justice of Telangana High Court Raghavendra Singh Chauhan has been transferred in the same capacity to Uttarakhand High Court. In turn, Arup Kumar Goswami has been appointed as the Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court while Justice Hima Kohli of the Delhi High Court has been transferred as the Chief Justice of Telangana High Court.


The High Court of Telangana on December 31 released the list of 770 successful candidates who appeared for the screening test conducted by it for filling up 70 vacancies for the post of Junior Civil Judge through direct recruitment.

Show Full Article
Print Article
Next Story
More Stories