CHENNAI: The tabling of The High-level Committee on Union–State Relations report by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin in the Assembly on Wednesday marks a significant political and constitutional moment, both for the state and for the wider debate on federalism in India. The report, submitted by a committee constituted by the Tamil Nadu government, lays out an expansive critique of what it describes as the steady erosion of state powers and the growing centralisation of authority in New Delhi.
In doing so, it closely mirrors and reinforces the long-standing ideological position of the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), which has historically argued that India’s federal structure has tilted excessively in favour of the Union at the expense of the states.
According to reports, at the heart of the report is the argument that Indian federalism, though constitutionally framed as a Union of states, has in practice evolved into a system where the Centre exercises disproportionate control over finances, administration and policy priorities.
The committee traces this imbalance to a combination of constitutional design, political practice and the expanding use of central laws and institutions in areas that directly affect state governance. It contends that the original intent of cooperative federalism has been weakened over time, with states increasingly reduced to implementing agencies for centrally designed schemes rather than autonomous governments accountable to their own legislatures and electorates.
A key theme running through the report is fiscal autonomy. It argues that states today face growing constraints on their ability to raise and deploy resources, even as their responsibilities in areas such as health, education, social welfare and infrastructure continue to expand. The committee flags what it sees as an over-centralised tax framework and conditional transfers that limit states’ policy flexibility. It suggests that the imbalance between revenue-raising powers and expenditure obligations has made states structurally dependent on the Centre, undermining the spirit of federalism and distorting accountability at the state level.
The report also focuses on the role of constitutional authorities, particularly Governors, asserting that the office has increasingly become a source of friction rather than a neutral link between the Union and the states. It argues that the manner of appointment and the scope for discretionary intervention have, in several instances, allowed Governors to influence or delay elected state governments, thereby upsetting the federal balance. The committee proposes institutional changes aimed at ensuring that Governors function strictly within constitutional limits and with greater sensitivity to the federal principle.
Beyond institutional and fiscal issues, the report situates its recommendations within a broader political context, pointing to the steady expansion of the Concurrent List and the use of central legislation to shape policy outcomes in domains that were once firmly within the states’ remit. It notes that this trend has narrowed the space for regional diversity and policy innovation, even though states differ widely in their social, economic and cultural conditions. According to the committee, a stronger federal structure is not a threat to national unity but a prerequisite for governing a diverse and complex country effectively.
By placing the report before the Assembly, Stalin framed it as both a diagnostic exercise and a call for national introspection. He underlined that the demand for enhanced state autonomy is not a transient political slogan but a foundational principle of the DMK’s politics, dating back to the early decades after Independence. The report consciously echoes earlier state-led efforts to re-examine Centre–State relations, particularly those initiated under previous DMK governments, and positions the present exercise as part of a continuing struggle to secure constitutional recognition for states as equal partners in the Union.
The political significance of the report lies not only in its content but also in its timing and intent. By making the findings public and tabling them in the legislature, the Tamil Nadu government has sought to move the debate on federalism from academic commissions and closed-door discussions into the realm of active politics. The report is clearly designed to resonate beyond the state, appealing to other regional governments that have expressed unease over centralisation and the shrinking space for state-level decision-making.
At the same time, the report acknowledges that translating its recommendations into reality would require wide political consensus and constitutional amendments, a process that is inherently complex and contentious. Yet, from the DMK government’s perspective, placing a comprehensive, reasoned and historically grounded document on the table is itself a strategic step. It allows the party to restate its core ideological commitment to state autonomy, anchor that commitment in constitutional argument rather than rhetoric, and challenge the prevailing trajectory of governance in India.