Federalism & Centre-State Relations
GS Paper: GS Paper II | Subject: Polity | Last updated: 2026-06-26
Prelims
(Key facts, data, schemes, laws, organizations — MCQ-ready points)
J&K Statehood Restoration Demand (Indian Express, 04-06-2026)
- National Conference (NC) legislative party (met at Dachigam, Srinagar; CM Omar Abdullah) decided to hold a protest in Delhi on the first day of the monsoon session
- Demand: restoration of statehood to Jammu & Kashmir and its "constitutional guarantees"
- Background: J&K reorganised into two Union Territories (J&K and Ladakh) and Article 370 abrogated in 2019; statehood promised but not yet restored
Ladakh Statehood + Constitutional-Safeguard Demand (The Hindu, 21-06-2026)
- The Ladakh Apex Body (LAB) and Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) — the two civil-society umbrella groups (activist Sonam Wangchuk among them) — called a complete shutdown of Ladakh on 23 June, accusing the Centre of "backtracking" on the 22 May decisions and delaying release of the agreed meeting minutes (talks between the MHA and a six-member committee)
- Their demands: (1) Statehood via a legislature under an elected Chief Minister with executive, legislative and financial powers over local matters; (2) constitutional safeguards modelled on the best provisions of Articles 371A, 371F and 371G — to be folded into a proposed new "Article 371K" for Ladakh
- Ladakh became a UT without a legislature in 2019; the demand also draws on the long-pending call to bring Ladakh under the Sixth Schedule (tribal-majority region)
CLARIFICATION: There is no Article 371K in the Constitution at present — the special-provisions series runs 371 → 371J (371A Nagaland, 371F Sikkim, 371G Mizoram, 371J Karnataka, etc.). "Article 371K for Ladakh" would be a newly inserted article requiring a constitutional amendment.
Mekedatu — Inter-State River-Water Dispute Reignites (The Hindu, 21-06-2026)
- Karnataka plans the ₹9,000-crore Mekedatu balancing reservoir on the Cauvery (within its territory) for Bengaluru's drinking water + 400 MW hydropower + regulated release to TN at Biligundlu; Tamil Nadu Assembly unanimously opposed it and now demands a new tribunal
- Supreme Court (13 Nov 2025): rejected TN's plea, holding the Central Water Commission (CWC) and Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) are the competent expert bodies; said no State can interfere with another's allocated water unless its own share is reduced; TN's review petition dismissed 15 Apr 2026
- Cauvery dispute machinery: Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) set up 1990 on SC direction (interim award 1991, final 2007); CWMA + Cauvery Water Regulation Committee created after the SC's 2018 verdict; Karnataka must release 177.25 tmcft/yr to TN at Biligundlu in a normal year. CWMA meets 23 June amid a subdued monsoon
- Constitutional frame: inter-state rivers are governed by Article 262 + the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 (tribunal awards have the force of an SC decree; Art 262(2) bars courts — incl. the SC — from the dispute, though the SC hears appeals under Art 136)
Tungabhadra — Three States Close Ranks; Centre Proposes Panel (The Hindu, 26-06-2026)
- Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana signalled a "historic consensus" to cooperate on the Tungabhadra basin at the inauguration of 33 new spillway gates of the Tungabhadra reservoir (Vijayanagara dist., Koppal) by Union Jal Shakti Minister C.R. Patil, with CMs Shivakumar, Naidu and Revanth Reddy present
- The Centre will constitute a high-level committee for a permanent solution to water-sharing among the three riparian States; ~33 tmcft of silt has accumulated, cutting storage — the Centre will dredge/desilt the Tungabhadra (technical support from Centre, execution with the three States) as part of a larger desilting-of-major-reservoirs plan
- Telangana's grievance: it cannot draw 5–6 tmcft despite a 15.9 tmcft allocation via the Rajolibanda Diversion Scheme (RDS) — excess siltation + sharing problems flagged to the Centre
- Contrast with Mekedatu/Cauvery (litigious): here the dispute is being handled cooperatively (joint inauguration, agreed dredging, proposed committee) rather than through tribunals/courts — a model of cooperative federalism on inter-State rivers (frame: Article 262 + Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956; Tungabhadra Board administers the project)
Mains
(Analysis, dimensions, significance, critique, policy angles — for 10/15 mark answers)
Cooperative vs Adversarial Water Federalism (The Hindu, 26-06-2026)
- Two templates on display the same week: the Tungabhadra episode (three States + Centre agreeing on desilting, gate-renewal and a joint committee) shows cooperative federalism working, while Mekedatu/Cauvery (TN vs Karnataka, demands for a new tribunal) shows the adversarial, litigious mode. The difference: a shared interest (siltation threatening all three States' storage) creates space for consensus
- The silt problem as a federal issue: reservoir sedimentation is an under-recognised driver of water scarcity and inter-State friction; a Centre-led desilting programme with State execution illustrates the Union's facilitator role under cooperative federalism, distinct from imposing tribunal awards
- Institutional design: durable solutions need basin-level institutions (river boards/authorities) with technical credibility and State buy-in, rather than one-off political consensus — the proposed high-level committee will be judged on whether it institutionalises this
- UPSC angle: inter-State river water disputes (Art 262, ISRWD Act 1956), cooperative vs competitive federalism, river boards/authorities, reservoir siltation & water security
UT-to-State: The Reverse-Federalism Question (Indian Express, 04-06-2026)
- Unique constitutional moment: J&K is the first time a full State was downgraded to UT(s) — restoring statehood would reverse that. Raises the federal principle that statehood should not be a reversible, Centre-controlled lever
- Democratic-deficit argument: A UT structure concentrates power with the Lieutenant Governor / Centre over an elected State government → NC frames restoration as restoring the people's democratic voice
- Supreme Court context: The Court (2023) upheld Art. 370 abrogation but directed restoration of statehood "at the earliest" — giving the demand a constitutional, not just political, basis
- Centre's balancing act: Security/normalisation concerns vs. the federal and democratic case for elected self-rule
- UPSC angle: Federalism & Union Territories, Article 370, reorganisation of states (Art. 3), centre–state relations, role of L-G vs elected govt