RAS question
The Punchhi Commission (2007-10) on Centre-State Relations recommended:
Correct answer: (D) Amending Article 356 to make localised emergency possible and setting a time limit on Governor's assent to bills.
The Punchhi Commission recommended making localised emergency possible under Articles 355 and 356, while requiring Governors to decide on State Bills within six months.
Explanation
The Punchhi Commission, chaired by Justice M.M. Punchhi during 2007-10, treated Article 356 as an extreme measure to be used only as a last resort. Its recommendation was to create a constitutional or legal framework for localised emergency, so the Union could respond to a specific breakdown without dissolving the Assembly or stopping the State Government from functioning elsewhere. The same recommendations also addressed delay in gubernatorial assent: when a State Bill reaches the Governor, the Governor should decide whether to assent, withhold assent or reserve it for the President within a maximum of six months. That combination makes option D the only accurate choice.
Why the other options are wrong
- (A) The Commission did not recommend merging the State List into the Union List; its approach was to manage Centre-State tensions through consultative federal mechanisms, not erase State legislative space.
- (B) The cited recommendations deal with emergency powers, Governors and the Inter-State Council, and contain no proposal to replace the Rajya Sabha with a US-style Senate.
- (C) The Commission did not recommend abolishing the Governor; it recommended rules and limits around the Governor's role, including a six-month decision window on Bills.
Concept
This tests Centre-State relations, especially emergency provisions and the Governor's constitutional role. It recurs in RAS because Article 356, gubernatorial discretion and federal safeguards are standard governance themes.