Redo Seventh Schedule to Clarify Centre-State Domains

Context: Over the years, Centre had encroached on state subjects too often, making it essential to relook at the provisions of the Seventh Schedule.

Some Instances of Centre encroaching to state subjects

• In Employment: Being a state subject, Parliament introduced a nationwide rural employment guarantee scheme launched through an Act of Parliament in 2005.

• It was inspired by the Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS) of Maharashtra

• Surprisingly, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGA) was passed in Parliament without any objection by states.

• Other legislations: This includes schemes or laws, such as the right to food, right to education, universal health insurance, and our new education policy and now labours law changes. 

• Formation of the Planning Commission in 1951: States did not complain initially, as the Planning Commission was seen as an additional conduit of funds

• Centrally-sponsored schemes: Through this Centre exercised de facto influence on many areas of development, ranging from water, education and forestry to employment and health, which were all in the policy domain of states.

Outcomes of this encroachment

• Negative effects: one-size-fits-all approach of NREGS in labour-market intervention may lead to unintended negative effects

• Loss ineffectiveness of schemes Discretion lost by state policymakers could also constrain its effectiveness. 

• For, E.g. if there was Discretion for states, then a state-specific extension of the scheme like EGS in Maharashtra could extend support for horticulture, or Kerala may support coconut plantations.

• No scope for local innovations:  Central diktat would ignore local realities and all scope for local innovation.

• Effect of Straitjacketing: In MGNREGS, the central scheme prescribes even the minutest details of how projects are to be implemented, leaving very little Discretion to local authorities. 

• The increased financial burden on the states: 

• Schemes are too rigid and often resulted in a greater financial burden on the states. 
• Centrally-launched schemes like universal health insurance have further increased the financial burden of states.

• Irrational allocation of funds: For, E.g. when money was needed for irrigation, the Planning Commission would give it for social schemes.
• Not in lines with provisions of the constitution: Due to encroachment, the classification codified in the seventh schedule has got blurred in practice.

Conclusion: Redrafting of the seventh schedule is necessary as dilutions over the years have led the Centre to encroach on state subjects too often.