Premium
This is an archive article published on May 10, 2010

Cong wants natural resources under Central control

The Congress would like to vest the Central government with “overriding” powers to take “both legislative and executive actions...

Given the “interminable process” of settling disputes between two or more states over resources like water by existing adjudicatory mechanism,the Congress would like to vest the Central government with “overriding” powers to take “both legislative and executive” actions in managing the country’s natural resources like water,forests,minerals and land. The ruling party is of the view that these are “trans-state” issues,which cannot be limited to state legislations.

In its recommendation to the Commission on Centre-State Relations,headed by former Chief justice of India M M Punchhi,which submitted its report to the government recently,the Congress maintained that water disputes were a major source of discord and adjudicatory mechanism rarely achieved a “quietus” because of interminable process.

“It must be accepted and acknowledged that resources listed above are not only common resources of India as a whole but of mankind. The Central government must have overriding but cautiously exercisable powers,subject to certain in-built thresholds and safeguards to take both legislative and executive actions in respect of these subjects,” the Congress suggested to the Commission. The party was the last to respond to the Commission’s questionnaire sent to all political parties. After much delay,the party had entrusted Rajya Sabha MP Abhishek Manu Singhvi early this year to prepare and submit its suggestions.

Story continues below this ad

Sources said in its recommendations,the ruling party cited its suggestions,earlier submitted to Sarkaria Commission,about the restoration of Clauses IV & V of Article 356 as it existed before the promulgation of Constitution (44th Amendment) Act. Restoration of these Clauses would mean that the continuation of the Presidential Proclamation issued under Article 356 would be required to be approved by Parliament within a year,as against the existing time limit of six months.

The Commission had sought political parties’ suggestions about the Governor’s role as also the terms of their appointment,tenure and removal. The Congress responded that the Governors had so far played their role “successfully and satisfactorily” in the context of Centre-state relations. The party also saw “no harm” in continuing with Articles 200 & 201 under which a Governor can reserve a Bill passed by a state Assembly for the assent of the President.

On a question about the role of media in preventing and containing communal and sectarian violence,Congress maintained that it was best for media to evolve its own mechanism,“which must,however,have teeth and a short-term time-bound implementation module”.

The party observed that diverse institutional fora of inter-government consultation existed,but were “frequently mere super-committees which meet occasionally as a matter of form”. The party suggested a system of effective meeting at regular intervals followed by published and circulated recommendations.

Story continues below this ad

The party did not want changes in the taxation powers of the Union and states.

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement