Final Draft of Seminar Paper II (Constitutional Law) PDF

**MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAGPUR** **Topic: Constitutional Amendments and its impacts on centre-state relations** **ML1.6. Constitutional Governance and Centre-State Relations** **Submitted By** **Payal Walde** **UID No. PG24-52** **Submitted To** **Dr. Kailash Vasave** **LLM 20...

**MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAGPUR** **Topic: Constitutional Amendments and its impacts on centre-state relations** **ML1.6. Constitutional Governance and Centre-State Relations** **Submitted By** **Payal Walde** **UID No. PG24-52** **Submitted To** **Dr. Kailash Vasave** **LLM 2024-2025** **Contents:** [Table of Cases: 3](#table-of-cases) [List of Abbreviations: 3](#list-of-abbreviations) [List of Statue: 3](#list-of-statue) [CHAPTER 1: 4](#chapter-1) [1.1 ABSTRACT 4](#_Toc180533965) [1.2. Research Problem: 4](#research-problem) [1.3. Research Methodology: 5](#research-methodology) [1.4. Research Questions: 5](#research-questions) [1.5. Literature Review: 5](#literature-review) [1.6. The Significance of the Study: 6](#the-significance-of-the-study) [1.7. The scope of the Study: 6](#the-scope-of-the-study) [1.8. Research Objectives: 6](#research-objectives) [CHAPTER 2: 7](#chapter-2) [2.1. Introduction 7](#introduction) [2.2. Recent Constitutional Amendments and Their Impact on Centre-State Relations: 7](#recent-constitutional-amendments-and-their-impact-on-centre-state-relations) [1. Goods and Services Tax (GST) - 101st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2016 , 7](#goods-and-services-tax-gst---101st-constitutional-amendment-act-2016) [2. Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018 9](#constitution-102nd-amendment-act-2018) [The Impact on Centre-State Relations: 9](#the-impact-on-centre-state-relations) [3.Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019 10](#constitution-103rd-amendment-act-2019) [The Impact on Centre-State Relations: 11](#the-impact-on-centre-state-relations-1) [4. Constitution (104th Amendment) Act, 2020 15](#constitution-104th-amendment-act-2020) [The Impact on Centre-State Relations: 15](#the-impact-on-centre-state-relations-2) [The following impacts are significant: 16](#the-following-impacts-are-significant) [5.Constitution (105th Amendment) Act, 2021 16](#constitution-105th-amendment-act-2021) [The Impact on Centre-State Relations: 17](#the-impact-on-centre-state-relations-3) [CHAPTER 3: 17](#chapter-3) [3.1. Recent Cases: 17](#recent-cases) [3.1.1. The Union of India vs. Mohit Minerals Pvt Ltd. (2022) 17](#the-union-of-india-vs.-mohit-minerals-pvt-ltd.-2022) [3.1.2. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) 18](#m.-nagaraj-v.-union-of-india-2006) [3.1.3. Ashok Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India (2008) 19](#ashok-kumar-thakur-vs.-union-of-india-2008) [CHAPTER 4: 20](#chapter-4) [4.1. Conclusion: 20](#conclusion) [4.2. References: 21](#references) [ ] **[Table of Cases:]** ================================================= 1. Janhit Abhiyan vs. Union of India (2022) 2. Union of India vs. Mohit Minerals Pvt Ltd. (2022) 3. M. Nagaraj vs. Union of India (2006) 4. Ashok Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India (2008) **[List of Abbreviations:]** ======================================== Abbreviations Full Form --------------- ------------------------------------------ V versus Pvt. Ltd. Private Limited GST Good and Services Tax SGST State GST CGST Central GST IGST Integrated GST VAT Value Added Tax NCBC National Commission for Backward Classes EWS Economically Weak Sections SEBC Socially and Backward Classes SC/ST Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe **[List of Statue:]** ================================= 1. Goods and Services Tax- 101^st^ Constitutional Amendment Act, 2016 2. National commission for backward classes- 102^nd^ Constitutional Amendment Act, 2018 3. Economically weaker section- 103^rd^ Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 4. Reserved seats for SC and ST- 104^th^ Constitutional Amendment Act, 2020 5. Maratha reservation case- 105^th^ Constitutional Amendment Act, 2021 **[CHAPTER 1:]** ============================ []{#_Toc180533965.anchor}**[1.1 ABSTRACT:]** *The Indian Constitution provides a strong foundation for federalism, with clearly outlined powers and responsibilities for both the central government and the states. However, the relationship between the Centre and the States is not fixed---it evolves, often influenced by constitutional amendments. This study explores how recent amendments, particularly the 101st, 102nd, 103rd, 104th, and 105th, have shaped Centre-State relations. These amendments highlight changing dynamics, with some granting more control to the Centre and others empowering the States. For instance, the 101st Amendment, which introduced the Goods and Services Tax (GST), drastically altered the financial relationship between the Centre and States by creating a unified tax system. In contrast, the 105th Amendment restored the States\' power to identify socially and educationally backward classes, reversing a restriction imposed by the 102nd Amendment.* *The research also examines how these amendments have impacted the States\' autonomy, particularly in areas like social justice and financial independence. By using a doctrinal approach, it delves into constitutional texts, judicial rulings, and scholarly debates on federalism in India. The key findings reveal that while the Constitution is designed to allow flexibility in governance, some amendments centralize power, reducing the States\' autonomy. This study contributes to the larger conversation on Indian federalism, offering insight into how constitutional changes can either strengthen or weaken the balance of power between the Centre and States.* **Keywords:** Centre-state relations, constitutional amendments, federal impacts, etc **[1.2. Research Problem:]** ======================================== The research problem is to explore how recent changes to the Constitution have influenced the power dynamics between the Centre and the States in India. Specifically, it looks at whether these amendments have altered the balance when it comes to financial independence, law-making authority, and the ability to address social justice issues. By examining these areas, the study aims to understand if the amendments have strengthened or weakened the federal structure that India's democracy relies on. **[1.3. Research Methodology:]** ============================================ This study follows a doctrinal legal research approach, focusing on close examination of constitutional provisions, amendments, court rulings, government reports, and academic literature. By using both primary sources (like constitutional texts, laws, and legal cases) and secondary sources (such as scholarly articles and books), research aims to provide a thorough analysis of how recent constitutional amendments have affected the relationship between the Centre and the States. This method will help in critically assessing the impact of these changes on India's federal system. **[1.4. Research Questions:]** ========================================== 1. How have recent constitutional amendments (101st, 102nd, 103rd, 104th, and 105th) impacted the balance of power between the Centre and States? 2. What are the implications of these amendments on fiscal federalism in India? 3. How have these amendments influenced the autonomy of States in matters of social justice and reservations? 4. Does the constitutional amendment process preserve the federal character of India, or does it lead to centralization? **[1.5. Literature Review:]** ========================================= "Granville Austin in his seminal work The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation explores how India\'s federal structure was designed to balance unity and diversity." "V.N. Shukla\'s Constitution of India provides a detailed analysis of constitutional amendments, offering insights into their judicial interpretation." "D.D. Basu Commentary on the Constitution of India elaborates on how amendments have affected Centre-State relations, particularly in areas like taxation and social justice." "Scholarly articles such as Sujata Patel's work on federalism examine the impacts of GST on fiscal relations between the Centre and States." "Arvind P. Dater's work on constitutional law provides critical perspectives on recent amendments, especially concerning the GST and EWS reservations." **[1.6. The Significance of the Study:]** ===================================================== This study is important as it offers an in-depth examination of how recent constitutional amendments have transformed Centre-State relations in India. By concentrating on areas such as fiscal independence, social justice initiatives, and legislative representation, research adds to the ongoing discussion on federalism and the evolving character of Indian constitutional law. It will provide valuable insights for academics, policymakers, and legal professionals engaged in federal governance and constitutional issues. **[1.7. The scope of the Study:]** ============================================== The study will concentrate on five major amendments---the 101st, 102nd, 103rd, 104th, and 105th Amendments---and will analyze their impact on Centre-State relations, particularly in relation to fiscal policy, social justice initiatives, and State autonomy. It will exclude amendments and cases preceding the Keshavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala (1973) judgment, with its primary focus being on the recent changes in Indian federalism. **[1.8. Research Objectives:]** =========================================== 1. To analyse the impact of recent constitutional amendments on Centre-State relations in India. 2. To explore how the amendments have affected fiscal federalism and the financial autonomy of States. 3. To examine the implications of these amendments on social justice policies, particularly with regard to reservations. 4. To assess whether the recent amendments strengthen or weaken the federal structure of India. This structure ensures a comprehensive examination of the constitutional amendments in question while providing a framework for exploring their broader legal and political implications. **[CHAPTER 2:]** ---------------------------- **[2.1. Introduction]** ----------------------------------- India's constitutional framework is rooted in the idea of federalism, striving to maintain a delicate balance of power between the Centre and the States. While the power to amend offers the flexibility needed to address evolving circumstances, it also has the potential to shift the Centre-State power dynamics. Constitutional amendments have played a crucial role in shaping this relationship, sometimes centralizing authority with the Centre and at other times empowering the States. In recent years, several amendments have been passed, significantly impacting Centre-State relations. These changes are not just legal shifts but also responses to social, political, and economic pressures, reflecting the changing needs of governance. This research will explore how these recent amendments have affected federalism, analysing whether they have strengthened or weakened the balance of power between the Centre and the States. **[2.2. Recent Constitutional Amendments and Their Impact on Centre-State Relations:]** --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **[1. Goods and Services Tax (GST) - 101st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2016]** [^1^](#fn1){#fnref1.footnote-ref}**[,]** {#goods-and-services-tax-gst---101st-constitutional-amendment-act-2016} -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The implementation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) in India signified both an economic change and a significant moment in the nation\'s social and political scenery. GST was designed to be a unifying influence, going beyond the usual barriers that divided state and central tax systems. Before the implementation of GST, the Centre and each state separately managed a complicated system of indirect taxes which included Central Excise Duty, Service Tax, and Value-Added Tax (VAT). This system not only imposed economic obstacles but also amplified inequalities within the national market, showcasing regional disparities and preferences. GST aimed to foster a feeling of national unity and economic cohesion by combining these taxes into one system. Nevertheless, the shift has led to discussions concerning federalism and autonomy within regions, as states have been required to give up certain tax powers in order to conform to this centralized system. This shift prompts consideration of the changing dynamic between the Centre and states within India\'s federal system, underscoring the wider impact of economic changes on governance and the independence of various regions in the country. Ultimately, GST provides insight into the challenges of harmonizing India\'s diverse cultural and political environment with national economic goals. It represents an attempt to not only simplify business transactions but also to promote a shared sense of belonging within India\'s federal democratic system. **[Provisions of the 101st Amendment:]** The amendment established a dual GST system, allowing both the Centre and States to impose taxes concurrently. The Centre applies Central GST (CGST), while the States levy State GST (SGST). For interstate transactions, an Integrated GST (IGST) is applied by the Centre and subsequently shared between the Centre and States. The GST Council was also created as a collaborative body that includes the Union Finance Minister, State Finance Ministers, and other central representatives. The Council's role is to set GST rates, decide on exemptions, and address other related issues. Additionally, Article 246A was added, granting both the Centre and States authority to legislate on GST matters. To ease the transition, the Centre committed to compensating States for any revenue shortfalls during the first five years of GST's implementation. **[The Impact on Centre-State Relations:]** Fiscal Autonomy: With the introduction of GST, tax collection has become more centralized, significantly curbing the States' ability to independently impose taxes such as VAT, entry tax, and entertainment, the tax. This shift has limited the States\' control over their own revenue generation, reducing their financial independence and increasing reliance on the central system for tax-related matters. The GST Council uses a three-fourths majority voting system, where the Centre holds one-third of the voting power and the States collectively hold the remaining two-thirds. Although the States as a group have more influence, individual States have limited ability to veto or block decisions. This structure tilts the balance of power slightly in favor of the Centre, making it harder for any single State to assert its position independently. Delayed Compensation Payments: The commitment to the compensate States for any shortfall in GST revenue became a source of dispute, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Delays by the Centre in disbursing these payments caused financial strain for many States, exacerbating tensions in the federal fiscal framework. **[2. Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018]**[^2^](#fn2){#fnref2.footnote-ref} {#constitution-102nd-amendment-act-2018} ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This amendment aimed to give constitutional authority to the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC), which was established to address the concerns of socially and educationally backward classes. Previously, the commission operated as an advisory body without formal constitutional recognition. **[Provisions of the 102nd Amendment:]** The amendment introduced Article 338B to the Constitution, elevating the NCBC to a constitutional body. The Commission now holds the power to investigate and oversee issues related to the protection of SEBC. Additionally, it has the authority to recommend the inclusion or removal of groups from the backward classes list. **[The Impact on Centre-State Relations:]** ------------------------------------------------------- The amendment centralized the reservation policy by granting the NCBC, the authority to identify backward classes, thereby limiting the States\' ability to independently establish and manage their own lists of backward classes. State Concerns: States such as Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, where regional politics surrounding backward classes are prominent, have voiced worries that their influence in identifying backward classes is being eroded. This amendment has tilted the balance toward centralized authority, diminishing State autonomy in shaping affirmative action policies. **[3.Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019]**[^3^](#fn3){#fnref3.footnote-ref} {#constitution-103rd-amendment-act-2019} ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This amendment introduced reservations for the economically weaker sections (EWS) in educational institutions and public employment, marking a significant departure from the caste-based reservation system that has been the norm in India since independence. **[Introduction to the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act:]** The Indian Constitution underwent a major change due to the enactment of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment. The 2019 revision, a major achievement, was created to improve and bolster educational opportunities for historically marginalized groups. The amendment focuses on allocating reservation quotas for economically weaker sections (EWS) in educational institutions. This action could lead to a positive change and reduce the gap in access to higher education. **[Amendment Procedures and Challenges:]** **[Article 368: The Amendment Process]** Article 368 of the Indian Constitution details the procedure for making amendments. This article outlines the process for amending the Constitution. There are various kinds of amendments, some needing a regular majority and others requiring a special majority. Approval from at least half of the state legislatures is also required for some amendments. This results in a process that is adaptable yet strict, depending on the specific change being suggested. **[Judicial Review and Basic Structure Doctrine]** The judiciary has a critical role in the process of amending laws. By means of judicial review, courts have the ability to assess the constitutionality of amendments. The Fundamental Structure Doctrine is an essential principle in this context. It is said that some core elements of the Constitution cannot be changed through amendments. This principle guarantees that the fundamental principles of the Constitution stay unchanged, despite alterations to other sections. **[Political and Social Challenges]** Changing the Constitution involves not only legal procedures but also political and social obstacles. Various political parties may hold different opinions on proposed changes, resulting in discussions and postponements. Factors within society, like public sentiment and advocacy, can impact the process of amending laws. These obstacles create barriers to reaching agreement on important modifications, further complicating the process of amending the constitution. **[Objective of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act:]** The main goal of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act was to reduce inequality by reserving a 10% quota for individuals from Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in government job opportunities and higher education institutions. **[Provisions of the 103rd Amendment:]** The Constitution was amended to include Article 15(6) and Article 16(6), giving permission to the State to create specific measures for the progress of economically disadvantaged groups in society. A 10% reservation is offered for EWS in government jobs and educational institutions, including private ones, with the exception of minority institutions. The primary basis for identifying economic vulnerability is income, with the cut off being an annual family income of ₹8 lakh. **[The Impact on Centre-State Relations:]** ------------------------------------------------------- Uniform Application: The reservation policy is implemented consistently nationwide, without considering any socio-economic differences that may be present among different states. This leads to tension, since States typically have a better grasp of their population\'s economic circumstances. State autonomy refers to the traditional authority of states to determine reservation policies according to their specific local demographics and socio-economic situations. By making EWS reservations mandatory, the Centre has limited the States\' ability to control reservation quotas. Constitutionality: The 103rd Amendment has faced numerous legal challenges, as critics believe it goes against the fundamental principles of the Constitution by including economic considerations for reservations. However, the Supreme Court has still supported the amendment, despite it remaining a topic of discussion at the federal level. **[Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/98959833/) [(2022)]**[^4^](#fn4){#fnref4.footnote-ref} The Indian Parliament passed the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 in January 2019. This amendment allows for the implementation of the reservations in higher education and public employment solely on the basis of economic criteria. The aforementioned amendment, which brought modifications to Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution, obtained the approval of the President and was subsequently published in the official Gazette. According to Article 15(6), the state has the authority to enact specific measures for the progress of economically disadvantaged sections, commonly referred to as economically weaker sections (EWS). These measures may include reservations in educational institutions with a cap of 10% of available seats. According to Article 16(6), it was permissible to make reservations in public employment, with the condition that the reservations did not exceed a maximum limit of 10%. However, many petitions were filed challenging the constitutionality of the amendment, arguing that it violated the core principles of the Constitution and encroached on the guaranteed right to equality under Article 14. The petitioners ([Youth For Equality, one such petitioner)](https://www.scobserver.in/cases/janhit-abhiyan-union-of-india-ews-reservation-case-background/) asserted that the criteria for reservations should not be exclusively grounded in economic factors, contending that the exclusion of SCs, STs, and OBCs from economic reservations contravened the principles of equality. Furthermore, they argued that the amendment exceeded the reservation limit of 50% as set forth in prior judicial decisions, namely  [Indira Sawhney v. Union of India](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1363234/).[^5^](#fn5){#fnref5.footnote-ref} Additionally, they asserted that the amendment infringed upon the principle of equality by imposing reservations on privately operated institutions that do not receive government assistance. Following the preliminary hearings conducted in 2019, the Supreme Court has opted to withhold its decision regarding the referral of the case to a Constitution Bench. In August 2020, the Court made the decision to refer the case to a panel consisting of five judges. The court scheduled the matter for hearing August, 2022, along with four other Constitution Bench matters, commencing in September. The five-judge Constitution Bench, under the leadership of Chief Justice, indicated its intention to consider this case in conjunction with the legal challenge to Andhra Pradesh's reservation Act pertaining to Muslims. Subsequently, the court made determination to prioritise the hearing of the case pertaining to the reservation of Economically weak Sections (EWS). On September, 2022, the court acknowledged matters presented by the Attorney General, encompassing an analysis of the permissibility of reservations solely based on economic criteria, the ability of states to implement reservations in private educational institutions without government assistance, and the potential invalidity of EWS reservations due to the exclusion of specific groups. Following the presentation of arguments from all relevant parties, the judicial panel refrained from issuing a verdict on September 27, 2022. The Bench issued the final verdict on November 7th, 2022, with a 3:2 split decision, upholding the constitutionality of the Amendment and reservations for Economically disadvantaged Sections (EWS). Justice Maheshwari, Trivedi, and Jariwala wrote concurring opinions, while Justice Bhat and Chief Justice U.U. Lalit presented a dissenting view together. Subsequent to the verdict, the Society for the Rights of Backward Communities lodged a petition on December 6th, 2022, with the aim of initiating a reassessment of the ruling that permits reservations for Economically weak Sections (EWS). The Indian parliament approved the Constitution (103rd amendment) Act in January 2019. This amendment permits the use of reservations in higher education and public employment based only on economic factors. The change that affected Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution was approved by the President and then released in the official Gazette. As per Article 15(6), the government is allowed to implement particular actions to advance economically underprivileged groups, often known as economically weaker sections (EWS). These actions could involve setting aside up to 10% of the seats in educational institutions for reservations. In public employment, reservations were allowed under Article 16(6) as long as they did not go over a 10% limit. Many challenges were made through petitions, questioning the constitutionality of the amendment and claiming it violated the fundamental principles of the Constitution and encroached on the right to equality safeguarded by Article 14. The petitioners, including Youth for Equality, argued that reservations should not only be based on economic reasons, stating that leaving out SCs, STs, and OBCs from economic quotas goes against equality principles. Moreover, they contended that the amendment went beyond the 50% reservation limit established in previous court rulings, specifically the case of Indira Sawhney v. Union of India. Moreover, they argued that the change violated the principle of the fairness by imposing restrictions on privately run establishments that do not get funding from the government. After the initial hearings in 2019, the Supreme Court has chosen not to make decision yet on whether to refer the case to a Constitution Bench. In August 2020, the Court reached a verdict. After the initial hearings in 2019, the Supreme Court has chosen not to make a final decision yet on whether to refer the case to a Constitution Bench. In August 2020, the Court decided to send the case to a group of five judges. The court set a date for the hearing in August 2022, along with four other Constitution Bench matters starting in September. The Chief Justice-led Constitution Bench of five judges signaled its plan to review this case alongside the legal dispute over Andhra Pradesh\'s reservation Act regarding Muslims. Afterwards, the court decided to give precedence to the trial of the case involving the reservation of Economically Weaker Sections (EWS). In September 2022, the court recognized the issues raised by the Attorney General, including examining if reservations based only on economic factors are allowed, if states can enforce reservations in private schools without state aid, and if EWS reservations may be deemed invalid for excluding certain groups. After hearing arguments from all relevant parties, the judicial panel decided not to make a ruling on September 27, 2022. The Bench announced the verdict on November 7th, 2022, with a split decision of 3:2, upholding the constitutionality of the Amendment and reservations for Economically disadvantaged Sections (EWS). Justices Maheshwari, Trivedi, and Jariwala wrote concurring opinions each, while Justice Bhat and Chief Justice U.U. Lalit shared a dissenting perspective in their combined opinion. After the decision, the Society for the Rights of Backward Communities filed a petition on December 6th, 2022, in order to request a review of the judgment allowing reservations for Economically Weak Sections (EWS). On May 9th, 2023, a panel of five judges rejected the petition. **[Repercussions and Benefits:]** The implications and benefits of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment have great importance for Indian society in its entirety. The amendment aims to improve fairness among individuals by extending the reservation to include economically disadvantaged groups, irrespective of their social status. The introduction of this initiative is expected to offer numerous students experiencing financial difficulties the opportunity to receive a top-notch education, potentially improving their socio-economic status. **[4. Constitution (104th Amendment) Act, 2020]**[^6^](#fn6){#fnref6.footnote-ref} {#constitution-104th-amendment-act-2020} ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The purpose of the 104th Amendment was to increase the number of reserved seats for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies, and to eliminate the provision for Anglo-Indian representation. **[Provisions of the 104th Amendment:]** The amendment prolonged the provision of seats for SCs and STs in the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies for an additional 10 years, specifically until 2030. It eliminated the allowance for appointing two representatives from the Anglo-Indian community to the Lok Sabha and specific State Legislative Assemblies, effectively terminating their unique representation. **[The Impact on Centre-State Relations:]** ------------------------------------------------------- The ongoing reservation for SCs and STs in State Assemblies upholds the representation of these communities in local governance, sustaining the political empowerment of marginalized groups. Anglo-Indian Community: The elimination of reserved seats for Anglo-Indians has caused dissatisfaction in the States like West Bengal and Kerala, where this community has a long-standing presence. State governments that highly regarded this representation have raised issues about the Centre\'s one-sided choice to end it. The amendment highlights how the Central government can change the composition of State legislatures through constitutional amendments, demonstrating the strong control the Union government has over State governance. **[Constitutional and Federal Impact:]** The 104th Amendment demonstrates how Centre-State relations in India\'s federal structure are continuously changing. Though SC/ST reservations remain, the elimination of Anglo-Indian representation shifts decision-making power to the national level while still prioritizing social justice and equal representation. **[The following impacts are significant:]** -------------------------------------------------------- Centralizing Decision-Making: The Centre unilaterally decided to remove Anglo-Indian representation, demonstrating a centralized governance of representation issues. In the past, the states had the freedom to have Anglo-Indian members in their Assemblies, but now the Union has more control over representation in State legislatures. The amendment reinforces Federal Unity by prolonging reservations for SCs and STs, demonstrating the government\'s dedication to inclusivity and ensuring marginalized communities maintain influence in State and national legislative processes. Dispute Arises from Lack of Consultation: The exclusion of Anglo-Indian appointments without sufficient consultation with the States has led to discussions on the extent of State participation in determining legislative modifications, causing strain in Centre-State ties. **[5.Constitution (105th Amendment) Act, 2021]**[^7^](#fn7){#fnref7.footnote-ref} {#constitution-105th-amendment-act-2021} ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The 105th Amendment was a reaction to the Supreme Court decision on the Maratha Reservation case, which invalidated the reservation law for the Maratha community in Maharashtra. The Court\'s interpretation of the 102nd Amendment meant that the States no longer had the authority to decide on backward classes. **[Provisions of the 105th Amendment:]** The amendment to Article 342A clarified that the Centre and States both have the authority to uphold their own SEBC lists. **[The Impact on Centre-State Relations:]** ------------------------------------------------------- Restoration of State Autonomy: This amendment upholds federalism by allowing States to determine SEBCs. It was a clear reaction to worries that the 102nd Amendment had excessively centralized reservation policy. States\' empowerment: This amendment signifies a political agreement, with Maharashtra and other States advocating for the reinstatement of their authority in determining reservations for backward classes. It shows the Centre\'s readiness to adjust its position in order to maintain the federal equilibrium. Future Consequences: The 105th Amendment could serve as a blueprint for upcoming discussions between the Centre and States regarding reservation policies and social justice measures, indicating that State independence can be reinstated through constitutional amendments if needed. ### [CHAPTER 3:] ### [3.1. Recent Cases: ] ### [3.1.1. The Union of India vs. Mohit Minerals Pvt Ltd. (2022)][^8^](#fn8){#fnref8.footnote-ref} {#the-union-of-india-vs.-mohit-minerals-pvt-ltd.-2022} This particular case addressed concerns connected to the GST structure brought in by the 101st Amendment and explained the distribution of fiscal authority between the Centre and the States. After reviewing arguments from both parties, the case facts, and relevant laws, the Supreme Court discussed the Constitutional framework of the GST. It noted that under Article 246A, both Parliament and State legislatures can pass laws on GST. Additionally, Article 279A establishes the GST council, which will provide suggestions to both the Union and the States on various topics related to GST. The court acknowledged the argument made by the Union of India (the Appellant) that the recommendations of the GST council hold legal weight on both the legislative and executive branches, and that the government\'s rule-making authority under the IGST and CGST Act, based on the council\'s recommendations, is extensive. The reading of Article 246A & 279A together clarifies that the GST council is the predominant authority in formulating the GST law as it serves as a unifying platform for both the Union and the States due to its constitutional status. The authority of the Parliament and State Legislature in Article 246A, and the authority of the GST Council in Article 279A, need to be evenly matched and coordinated to prevent one from superseding the other. The suggestions made by the GST Council are converted into laws through a comprehensive examination of Article 279A and Sections 5,6, and 22 of the IGST Act 2017 and Sections 9,11, and 164 of the CGST Act. The Court noted that in 2004, the Task force on implementation of Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act, 2003 suggested a move to consumption taxes to boost Production efficiency and improve Indian Goods and Services\' global competitiveness. The requirement for a large-scale change in the tax system was due to issues with the current indirect tax system, which had problems like numerous taxes, taxable events, compliance requirements, and authorities. The initial discussion document on Goods and Service tax in India outlined the reason for implementing GST as the consolidation of various taxes like Central Excise, Service Tax, VAT, luxury tax, and entertainment tax into a single tax. Additionally, States should be empowered to levy taxes on all services previously under the control of the Centre and to eliminate cascading tax effects from the CENVAT component. Parliament presented the Constitution (The115th Amendment) Bill 2011 to modify the Constitution in order to implement the GST system. Additionally, the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Second Amendment) Bill 2014 aimed to substitute the various indirect taxes imposed by both the State Governments and the Union Government with a unified tax regime in order to eradicate the cascading impact of numerous taxes and establish a uniform national market. The Finance Minister introduced the 2014 bill in order to simplify the taxation process by aligning different taxes and avoiding complications and cascading impacts of multiple taxes. ### [3.1.2. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006)] This case investigated the legality of constitutional changes regarding reservations in promotions for SC/ST employees. Understanding the judicial review of amendments impacting reservations is important. In M Nagaraj vs The Union of India, the plaintiff claimed that disputed constitutional changes to Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) had an impact on the foundational concept of equality. The defendant argued that amendment powers were expansive and not limited by the fundamental framework of the Constitution. In the case of M Nagaraj vs. The Union of India, the court approved the changes, stating they would only affect SCs and STs, while still upholding important aspects such as the 50% reservation cap and the concept of the \"creamy layer.\" It was determined that states must show compelling reasons when putting reservations into effect, highlighting the empowering aspect of the provision. Although acknowledging the legitimacy of the changes, the court in the M Nagaraj vs The Union of India case emphasized the importance of taking measures to avoid prolonged and excessive expansions of reservations by requiring proof of under-representation and marginalization. The court determined that social justice encompasses distributing rights and responsibilities where rights, needs, and resources align, guaranteeing either \"proportional equality\" or \"formal equality\" in accordance with the law. ### [3.1.3. Ashok Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India (2008)][^9^](#fn9){#fnref9.footnote-ref} {#ashok-kumar-thakur-vs.-union-of-india-2008} This case investigated the legality of quotas in schools and is connected to the 103rd Amendment. The Court observed that the 93rd Amendment would be beyond legal authority and unconstitutional if the creamy layer is not omitted. The Court ruled that no particular criteria should be set for determining the creamy layer; it is the Government\'s responsibility to make that determination. The court also ruled that OBCs must adhere to the ban on the creamy layer. The Court also pointed out that restricting individuals from exercising their basic right to work under Article 19(1)(g) by imposing limitations on unaided organizations violates the Fundamental Structure. However, the 93rd Amendment to the Constitution can be applied to both state-run and federally-supported educational institutions. However, the 93rd Amendment to the Constitution can be implemented in state-funded and federally supported educational institutions. Therefore, they are not breaching the Constitution. The court found Articles 14 and 15 to be constitutionally sound as they have separate impacts and do not contradict each other. The Ashok Kumar Thakur v. UOI case clearly shows that relying solely on \"caste\" is not sufficient for classifying someone as SEBC or OBC. Article 15(4) focuses on social classes, not on caste. If \"caste\" was to be included in the constitution as a factor of social and educational backwardness, it would be specifically addressed in Article 15(4). The aim of the constitution is to promote the advancement of disadvantaged classes and prioritize the well-being of society over that of individuals or groups that have succeeded socially and educationally. This case also clears up any doubts about the union government\'s classification of other castes or socially and economically disadvantaged classes. The petitioners believed that the union government was given too much authority in this situation. It is crucial to discuss this. Both national and state commissions are operational to handle SEBC or OBC issues. India is widely recognized as a country with great diversity, with each region having its own unique traditions and customs, and where certain castes are treated differently based on their location. Creating a unified list of SEBCs or OBCs for each state or region poses a significant challenge. ### [CHAPTER 4:] ### [4.1. Conclusion:] Constitutional amendments in India serve as a means to tackle new social and economic issues and uphold the ever-changing federal structure. Yet, these changes could result in major impacts on the division of authority between the Central government and individual States. The GST (101st Amendment) and the 103rd Amendment (EWS reservations) have contributed to greater centralization, while the 105th Amendment (restoring State authority over SEBCs) aims to strengthen federal principles. As India\'s leadership system keeps changing, it will be important to study how these changes affect the relationship between the central government and state governments, which reflects the delicate balance between national unity and regional independence. Ultimately, amendments such as the GST and EWS reservations have favoured the Centre, while others have given back authority to the States, showing how Indian federalism is a complex and constantly changing system. The relationship between the Centre and States continues to play a crucial role in the operation of the Indian Constitution, with further amendments expected to impact this dynamic. ### [4.2. References:] Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation -- Explores the federal design of the Indian Constitution and how it has evolved over time. D.D. Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India -- A thorough analysis of constitutional provisions and amendments, with a focus on their impact on Centre-State relations. V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India -- Provides a detailed interpretation of amendments and case laws affecting Centre-State relations. Arvind P. Datar, Constitutional Law of India -- Offers a critical perspective on constitutional amendments, especially in the context of judicial review and federalism. Sujata Patel, \"Federalism and GST: The New Era of Fiscal Relations,\" Indian Journal of Public Administration -- Examines the impact of the GST on Centre-State fiscal relations. Suresh K. Goel, \"Reservation Policies and Federalism,\" Journal of Indian Law and Society -- Discusses the implications of reservation amendments on federalism and social justice. S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India -- Articles analyzing this landmark case in the context of Centre-State relations and its influence on the interpretation of constitutional amendments. ::: {.section.footnotes} ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. ::: {#fn1} 1\. \"Constitutional Amendments: Making, Breaking, and Changing Constitutions\" by Richard Albert 2\. \"Constitutional Amendments and Political Theory\" by Sanford Levinson (Editor) 3\. \"The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution\" edited by Sujit Choudhry, Madhav Khosla, and Pratap Bhanu Mehta[↩](#fnref1){.footnote-back} ::: 2. ::: {#fn2} \"Working a Democratic Constitution: The Indian Experience\" by Granville Austin, \"The Constitution of India: A Contextual Analysis\" by Arun Thiruvengadam, \"The Constitution of India: A Commentary\" by Subhash Kashyap[↩](#fnref2){.footnote-back} ::: 3. ::: {#fn3} The Constitution 103^rd^ Amendment Act, 2019[↩](#fnref3){.footnote-back} ::: 4. ::: {#fn4} Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India SC 9 2022[↩](#fnref4){.footnote-back} ::: 5. ::: {#fn5} Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) 3 SCC 217[↩](#fnref5){.footnote-back} ::: 6. ::: {#fn6} The Constitution (104^th^ Amendment) Act, 2020[↩](#fnref6){.footnote-back} ::: 7. ::: {#fn7} Constitution of India, Article 342A (3)[↩](#fnref7){.footnote-back} ::: 8. ::: {#fn8} Union of India v. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 1394[↩](#fnref8){.footnote-back} ::: 9. ::: {#fn9} Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008) 6 SCC 1138[↩](#fnref9){.footnote-back} ::: :::