Revision summary
Article 263 authorises an Inter-State Council; Sarkaria’s push led to its 1990 constitution. The PM chairs; Chief Ministers and some Union ministers are members. Functions are dispute advice, common-interest discussion, and policy coordination, all recommendatory. Meetings have been too few for a standing federal forum. Bommai, GST Council, and tribunals did more for federal conflict than the Council did.
Model answer
Introduction
The Inter-State Council is a constitutional body under Article 263 for coordination between the Union and the States and among States. Sarkaria recommended that it be set up as a standing political forum. It was constituted in 1990. Success has been modest beside the problems it was meant to ease.
Body
Composition
- The Prime Minister is the chairman. Chief Ministers of all States and those Union Territories with assemblies are members.
- Six Union Cabinet ministers, nominated by the Prime Minister, sit on the Council.
- A standing committee, usually chaired by the Union Home Minister, does preparatory work.
- The Secretariat, now with the Ministry of Home Affairs after shifts of location, services meetings. This is a political council, not a court.
Functions under Article 263
- Inquiring into and advising upon disputes between States.
- Investigating and discussing subjects of common interest to some or all States, or to the Union and one or more States.
- Making recommendations for better coordination of policy and action.
- Sarkaria wanted it to be the principal forum for Union–State consultation, including on concurrent-list bills and fiscal federal stress.
- Punchhi later asked for more regular meetings and a stronger follow-up of recommendations.
Extent of success
- The Council created a recognised table after decades of ad hoc National Development Council and zonal councils. That is a partial success of form.
- It discussed Sarkaria’s own report, Article 356, and some concurrent-list issues. Recommendations are advisory. Cabinets may ignore them.
- Meetings have been infrequent for long stretches, which is the opposite of a standing coordinating device.
- S. R. Bommai (1994) disciplined President’s Rule through the Court, not through the Council, showing where federal protection actually bit.
- GST Council under Article 279A became a more consequential federal bargain on tax. NITI Aayog replaced Planning Commission as a different talking shop. The Inter-State Council did not become the centre of either money or planning.
- River disputes still go to tribunals and the Supreme Court. The Council has not been the successful dispute-settler Article 263 imagined.
Assessment
- Objectives of dialogue and a less imperial Centre are only weakly met.
- Coalition eras used extra-constitutional bargaining more than this Council. A dominant national party can starve it of meetings.
- It remains useful when used. It has not achieved Sarkaria’s standing political federalism.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD A263[Article 263] --> ISC[Inter-State Council] ISC --> PM[PM plus CMs] ISC --> F[Advise coordinate disputes] S[Sarkaria 1990] --> ISC GST[GST Council] --> ALT[Stronger fiscal forum]
Conclusion
The Inter-State Council’s composition is PM, Chief Ministers, and nominated Union ministers. Its functions are inquiry, common-interest discussion, and recommendatory coordination. Success is limited: irregular meetings, advisory teeth, and displacement by GST Council, courts, and informal coalition bargains.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Examine the unique features of the 73rd Constitutional Amendment. Do you think this Amendment would contribute in achieving the goal of empowerment of marginalised sections of the society?
Next question in the 2022 paper (Q7). View answer →
-
Are Council recommendations binding?
No. They are advice. Political follow-up decides their fate.
-
Does Article 263 require the Council to exist?
It permits the President to establish one if the public interest so requires. Sarkaria argued that the public interest did.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2025 · Q6(b) · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks
Examine the constitutional provisions and nature of advisory jurisdiction of Supreme Court of India. Evaluate your answer with relevant examples -
2025 · Q6(c) · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks
The recent developments in Indian Politics has not eroded the true spirit of federalism in India. Critically examine this statement with the help of appropriate illustrations -
2023 · Q6(a) · PSIR GS 1 · 20 marks
Discuss the major provisions of the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act. Do you think that the Act remains an 'unfulfilled dream'? Argue your case -
2023 · Q8(a) · PSIR GS 1 · 20 marks
The rise of caste politics is to be attributed to both regional aspirations and electoral manifestations. Comment -
2021 · Q3(a) · PSIR GS 1 · 20 marks
Explain the Aristotelian view of politics. To what extent do you think it has contributed to the development of modern-day constitutional democracies?
More from this paper
Q1(a) · UPSC Mains 2022 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Systems Approach.
Political Theory
Easton treated politics as authoritative allocation inside a system of inputs, conversion, outputs, and feedback. Almond restated conversion as interest and rule functions plus political culture. The method compared new states by function, not by legal text alone. Critics charge equilibrium bias and neglect of class, ideology, and silent power. It remains a map of process, not a theory of justice.
Q1(b) · UPSC Mains 2022 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Cultural Relativism.
Political Theory
Cultural relativism asks that meaning be read inside a culture, against racial ranking. Boas and Herskovits are the canonical names. As method it blocks ethnocentrism; as absolute ethics it can protect domination. Parekh and Kymlicka keep culture with exit and equality. Indian minority rights sit beside Article 17, which relativism cannot erase.
Q1(c) · UPSC Mains 2022 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
"Revolution in Permanence".
Political Theory
Trotsky’s revolution in permanence refuses a long bourgeois stage in late societies. Democratic and socialist tasks are chained; the process is international. The formula opposes Stalin’s socialism in one country. Marx’s 1850 phrase is the ancestor; 1905 and 1917 are the cases. The limit is neglect of peasantry, nation, and post-revolutionary law.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.