Assessing the Functioning of the Inter-State Council in India: Limitations in Realizing Cooperative Federalism
The Inter-State Council (ISC) was envisioned as a constitutional mechanism to strengthen cooperative federalism in India—a means to foster dialogue, consultation, and coordination between the Union and the States. Established under Article 263 of the Constitution, the ISC was designed as a platform for resolving intergovernmental disputes, deliberating on policy issues of common interest, and promoting national integration through dialogue. However, despite its institutional significance, the ISC has not fully realized its potential, owing to a mix of structural, political, and operational limitations.
1. Constitutional Intent vs. Political Practice
The framers of the Constitution provided for the ISC as an advisory body, not as a binding decision-making institution. While this reflects the cautious federalism of the Indian Constitution, it also limited the legal enforceability of the ISC’s recommendations. Consequently, successive governments have treated the ISC as optional and dispensable, rather than an essential part of the federal governance architecture.
Although the ISC was formally established in 1990—four decades after the Constitution came into effect—its delayed activation and sporadic use reveal a pattern of institutional underutilization, often dictated by political convenience rather than constitutional principle.
2. Infrequency of Meetings and Weak Institutional Continuity
One of the most critical factors undermining the ISC’s effectiveness is the infrequent convening of its meetings. Since its inception, the ISC has met only a handful of times, and large intervals between meetings have weakened its relevance as a continuous forum for federal dialogue.
- Lack of periodicity has reduced its ability to address emerging inter-state issues in real time.
- Absence of follow-up mechanisms or structured reviews of past decisions has further impaired its institutional credibility.
In contrast to other federal democracies (e.g., Australia’s Council of Australian Governments or Canada’s Council of the Federation), where intergovernmental forums are held regularly and are politically salient, India’s ISC remains episodic and largely symbolic.
3. Executive-Centric Structure and Limited Stakeholder Engagement
The ISC is chaired by the Prime Minister, with all Chief Ministers and select Union Cabinet Ministers as members. While this high-level composition reflects the political importance of the forum, in practice, it has contributed to a top-down dynamic, where the Union government dominates proceedings.
- Discussions often mirror the central government’s agenda, limiting genuine policy negotiation or consensus-building.
- States have limited capacity to set the agenda, leading to a perception that the ISC serves more as a consultative formality than a forum for meaningful partnership.
Additionally, there is little involvement of civil society, domain experts, or local governments, reducing the inclusiveness and policy depth of ISC deliberations.
4. Weak Secretariat and Operational Capacity
The functioning of the ISC is supported by the Inter-State Council Secretariat (ISCS) under the Ministry of Home Affairs. However, the secretariat suffers from:
- Insufficient autonomy and resources.
- Bureaucratic subordination to the Union government.
- A limited research and policy support structure, which undermines its ability to prepare substantive policy briefs, follow up on implementation, or monitor outcomes.
This has prevented the ISC from emerging as a think tank-style policy platform, reducing its influence on intergovernmental decision-making.
5. Political Polarization and the Federal Deficit
A significant challenge to the ISC’s efficacy arises from increasing political polarization between the Union and opposition-ruled states. In recent years, federal tensions have grown over:
- Fiscal centralization (e.g., GST compensation delays).
- Use of centrally sponsored schemes to bypass state priorities.
- Differential treatment of states in disaster relief, taxation, or infrastructure funding.
In such a climate, the ISC has not been proactively used to diffuse tensions or institutionalize dialogue, contributing to what scholars often describe as a federal deficit. Political parties, when in power at the Centre, may be reluctant to empower states through consultative institutions like the ISC.
6. Overlapping Forums and Institutional Redundancy
The ISC’s role overlaps with other bodies like:
- The NITI Aayog, which holds periodic meetings with Chief Ministers.
- Sector-specific ministerial councils (e.g., on water, health, education).
- The Zonal Councils, which deal with region-specific issues.
These forums have in some ways crowded out the ISC, especially as NITI Aayog, with its strong Prime Ministerial backing, is increasingly seen as the primary platform for Union-State interaction. However, unlike the ISC, NITI Aayog lacks constitutional status, making this substitution legally and structurally inadequate.
7. Recommendations Ignored or Unimplemented
Although the ISC has made several noteworthy recommendations on subjects like Centre-State financial relations, internal security coordination, and language policy, these have rarely translated into concrete action.
- Lack of binding authority means that even unanimous recommendations can be shelved without explanation.
- There is no parliamentary oversight or reporting mechanism to ensure accountability for ISC outcomes.
This has created a trust deficit among states, reducing their incentive to invest politically or bureaucratically in ISC processes.
Conclusion: Unrealized Promise in a Fragmented Federation
The Inter-State Council remains a constitutionally significant but politically underutilized institution in India’s federal architecture. While it was conceived as a forum for cooperative federalism, its potential has been constrained by:
- Infrequent meetings,
- Executive dominance,
- Operational inefficiencies,
- Political centralization,
- And lack of institutional autonomy.
Revitalizing the ISC requires not just procedural reforms (e.g., regular meetings, empowered secretariat) but a political culture of federal consultation and trust-building. In an era of increasing intergovernmental interdependence—ranging from public health to climate governance—the ISC could play a critical role in enhancing federal coordination, resolving disputes, and ensuring a more participatory model of national policymaking. For that, however, it must be institutionally empowered and politically respected, beyond the confines of episodic formalism.
Discover more from Polity Prober
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.