Supreme Court
The recent interactions between state governments and the Supreme Court have sparked concerns, prompting the court to advocate for cooperation rather than competition between the central and state authorities. This call for harmony came to light during a hearing regarding a writ petition by the Karnataka government seeking drought relief funds.
The petition alleges that the central government has not provided financial assistance to Karnataka despite the drought affecting multiple districts, leading the state to approach the court, citing a violation of fundamental rights of its people.
Karnataka further argued that despite the submission of a report on the drought-related disaster by an inter-ministerial team six months ago, the central government has failed to take action. Additionally, it claimed that the withholding of National Disaster Response Fund benefits has exacerbated the situation.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the state government, emphasized that the central government was mandated to act on the report within a month of its submission.
In response, the central government questioned the timing of the petition, especially with the Lok Sabha election looming in 11 days, suggesting that Karnataka should have first approached Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government before resorting to legal action.
The bench, comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta, granted two weeks to Attorney General R Venkatramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the central government, to seek instructions on the matter.
This clash between the central and state governments, particularly concerning the allocation of funds and tax devolution, has been a recurring issue, especially with southern states like Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala challenging the center’s actions.
The Karnataka petition follows Tamil Nadu’s recent plea for an ex-parte order demanding the release of ₹ 2,000 crore as part of an interim relief package for flood-affected districts, further highlighting the ongoing tensions.
The dispute over fund disbursement and tax devolution also spilled over into Parliament in February, where Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and Congress’ Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury engaged in heated exchanges over allegations of financial discrimination against non-BJP ruled states.
In response to these allegations, Finance Minister Sitharaman reiterated that the devolution of taxes occurs according to the recommendations of the Finance Commission.
The grievances of the southern states regarding federal fund allocation were further highlighted in February when representatives from Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala staged protests in Delhi, alleging discrimination in fund distribution, particularly to non-BJP ruled states.
After a major sell-off earlier in the week, Adani Group stocks, led by Ambuja Cements…
A sharp rally in financial stocks and encouraging US labor market data fueled the uptrend.…
PM Narendra Modi held 31 bilateral meetings and discussions during his visit to Nigeria, Brazil,…
These words were added during the 42nd Amendment in 1976, under the tenure of Prime…
During the hearing, the Supreme Court clarified that the six MLAs removed as Chief Parliamentary…
Bumrah’s 4-17, backed by Mohammed Siraj and debutant Harshit Rana, helped India seize the momentum…