Chapter 3

1.   Sadhuram vs Pulin, 1984. Reference to the judicial interpretation are from D. D. Basu, Shorter Constitution of India (New Delhi: Wadhwa and Company, 1999), 12th ed.

2.   Ibid.

3.   Lingappa vs State of Maharashtra, 1985, Indra vs Union of India, 1992.

4.   Babu vs Raghunathji, 1976.

5.   Indra vs Union of India, 1993, Supreme Court.

6.   Raghunath Rao vs Union of India, 1994.

7.   Markandeya vs State of Andhra Pradesh, 1989.

8.   Keshavanand vs State of Kerala, 1973.

9.   Union of India vs H. D. C., 1994.

10. Ratlam Municipality vs Vardhichnad, 1980.

11. Mackison Co. vs Audrey, 1987.

12. Randhir vs Union of India, 1982; Ramachandra vs Union of India, 1984; Grih Kalyan vs Union of India, 1991.

13. Bandhna Morch vs Union of India, 1984.

14. Mehta vs State of Tamil Nadu, 1991.

15. Patnaik vs State of A. P. 1979.

16. Francine R. Frankel, India's Political Economy, 1947–1977: The Gradual Revolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978). (Chapter 8, Crisis of national economic planning).

17. Govinda M. Rao and Tapas Sen, Fiscal Federalism in India: Theory and Practice (New Delhi: Macmillan, 1996), p. 90.

18. Transfers through the Planning Commission are made under Article 282 of the Constitution, which allows grants for ‘public purpose’ and Article 293, which provides for grant of loans to the states by the central government.

19. G. Thimmaials, ‘Federal India: Emerging Economic Issues From the States’ Point of View’. In V. S. Jafa, ed., Federal India: Emerging Issues (New Delhi: Indian Tax Institute, 1999).

20. Jairam Ramesh, ‘Defending New Delhi in the Debate on Greater Fiscal Autonomy to Status’, India Today, 7 August 2000.

21. Kuldeep Mathur, Bureaucracy and the Agricultural Strategy (New Delhi: Concept, 1982), p. 8.

22. See observations in another context, Report of the High Powers Committee, Response of the State Government to the Audit Reports of CAG of India (New Delhi: Comptroller & Auditor General, 1993).

23. This is elaborated in Chapter 10, ‘Institutional Crisis and Governance’.

24. In an effort to provide greater statutory financial allocation through tax sharing through the Finance Commission, the 89th Amendment passed by the Lok Sabha aimed to create a single divisible pool of central taxes, in place of dividing only the income tax and excise duties under Articles 270 and 272. This recommendation emanated from the Tenth Finance Commission in 1994, became a part of the Central Budget in 1996 and was approved by the Inter-State Council in 1997. The Eleventh Finance Commission has earmarked 29.5 per cent of the central pool as the states’ share.