Hubbry Logo
Finance CommissionFinance CommissionMain
Open search
Finance Commission
Community hub
Finance Commission
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Finance Commission
Finance Commission
Finance Commission
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Sixteenth Finance Commission of India
Vitta Āyoga

Emblem of India
Commission overview
Formed22 November 1951; 73 years ago (1951-11-22)
JurisdictionIndia Government of India
HeadquartersNew Delhi
Commission executives
Websitefincomindia.nic.in

The Finance Commissions (IAST: Vitta Jayga) are commissions periodically constituted by the President of India under Article 280 of the Indian Constitution to define the financial relations between the central government of India and the individual state governments. The First Commission was established in 1951 under The Finance Commission (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1951. Fifteen Finance Commissions have been constituted since the promulgation of Indian Constitution in 1950. Individual commissions operate under the terms of reference which are different for every commission, and they define the terms of qualification, appointment and disqualification, the term, eligibility and powers of the Finance Commission.[1] As per the constitution, the commission is appointed every five years and consists of a chairman and four other members.

The most recent Finance Commission was constituted on 31 December 2023 and is chaired by Arvind Panagariya former Vice Chairman of NITI Aayog.[2]

History

[edit]

As a federal nation, India suffers from both vertical and horizontal fiscal imbalances. Vertical imbalances between the central and state governments result from states incurring expenditures disproportionate to their sources of revenue, in the process of fulfilling their responsibilities. However, states are better able to gauge the needs and concerns of their inhabitants and therefore more efficient at addressing them. Horizontal imbalances among state governments result from differing historical backgrounds or resource endowments and can widen over time.

Several provisions to bridge the fiscal gap between the centre and the states were already enshrined in the Constitution of India, including Article 268, which facilitates the levy of duties by the centre but equips the States to collect and retain the same. Similarly, Articles 269, 270, 275, 282 and 293, among others, specify ways and means of sharing resources between the Union and States. In addition to the above provisions, the finance commission serves as an institutional framework to facilitate Centre-State Transfers. [citation needed]

Article 280 of the Constitution of India

Article 280 of the Indian Constitution defines the scope of the commission:

  1. The President will constitute a finance commission within two years from the commencement of the Constitution and thereafter at the end of every fifth year or earlier, as deemed necessary by him/her, which shall include a chairman and four other members.
  2. Parliament may by law determine the requisite qualifications for appointment as members of the commission and the procedure of selection.
  3. The commission is constituted to make recommendations to the president about the distribution of the net proceeds of taxes between the Union and States and also the allocation of the same among the States themselves. It is also under the ambit of the finance commission to define the financial relations between the Union and the States. They also deal with the devolution of unplanned revenue resources.

Functions

[edit]
  1. Distribution of 'net proceeds' of taxes between Center and the States, to be divided as per their respective contributions to the taxes.
  2. Determine factors governing Grants-in-Aid to the states and the magnitude of the same.
  3. To make recommendations to the president as to the measures needed to augment the Fund of a State to supplement the resources of the panchayats and municipalities in the state on the basis of the recommendations made by the finance commission of the state.
  4. Any other matter related to it by the president in the interest of sound finance.

The Finance Commission (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1951

[edit]

The Finance Commission (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1951 was passed to give a structured format to the finance commission and to bring it to par with world standards, by laying down rules for the qualification and disqualification of members of the commission, and for their appointment, term, eligibility and powers.[3]

Qualifications of the members

[edit]

The chairman of a finance commission is selected from people with experience of public affairs. The other four members are selected from people who:

  1. Are, or have been, or are qualified, as judges of a high court; or
  2. Have knowledge of government finances or accounts; or
  3. Have had experience in administration and financial expertise; or
  4. Have special knowledge of economics

Disqualification from being a member of the commission

[edit]

A member may be disqualified if:

  1. He is mentally unsound; and as follows-
  2. He is an undischarged insolvent;
  3. He has been convicted of an immoral offence;
  4. His financial and other interests are such that it hinders the smooth functioning of the commission.

Terms of office of members and eligibility for reappointment

[edit]

Every member will be in office for the time period as specified in the order of the President, but is eligible for reappointment provided he has, by means of a letter addressed to the president, resigned his office.

Salaries and allowances of the members

[edit]

The members of the commission shall provide full-time or part-time service to the commission, as the President specifies in his order. The members shall be paid salaries and allowances as per the provisions made by the Central Government.

List of Finance Commissions

[edit]

So far 15 Finance Commissions have been appointed which are as follows:[4]

Finance Commission Year of establishment Chairman Operational duration
First 1951 K. C. Neogy 1952–57
Second 1956 K. Santhanam 1957–62
Third 1960 A. K. Chanda 1962–66
Fourth 1964 P. V. Rajamannar 1966–69
Fifth 1968 Mahavir Tyagi 1969–74
Sixth 1972 K. Brahmananda Reddy 1974–79
Seventh 1977 J. M. Shelat 1979–84
Eighth 1983 Y. B. Chavan 1984–89
Ninth 1987 N. K. P. Salve 1989–95
Tenth 1992 K. C. Pant 1995–00
Eleventh 1998 A. M. Khusro 2000–05
Twelfth 2002 C. Rangarajan 2005–10
Thirteenth 2007 Dr. Vijay L. Kelkar 2010–15
Fourteenth[5] 2013 Dr. Y. V Reddy 2015–20
Fifteenth[6] 2017 N. K. Singh 2020-21; 2021-26
Sixteenth 2023 Arvind Panagariya 2026 - 31

14th Finance Commission

[edit]
Main article: Fourteenth Finance Commission of India

Major Recommendations of 14th Finance Commission headed by Prof. Y V Reddy

  1. The share of states in the net proceeds of the shareable Central taxes should be 42%. This is 10 percentage points higher than the recommendation of 13th Finance Commission.
  2. Revenue deficit to be progressively reduced and eliminated.
  3. Fiscal deficit to be reduced to 3% of the GDP by 2017–18.
  4. A target of 62% of GDP for the combined debt of centre and states.
  5. The Medium Term Fiscal Plan (MTFP) should be reformed and made the statement of commitment rather than a statement of intent.
  6. FRBM Act needs to be amended to mention the nature of stocks which shall require targets relaxation.
  7. Both centre and states should conclude 'Grand Bargain' to implement the model Goods and Services Act (GST).
  8. Initiatives to reduce the number of Central Sponsored Schemes (CSS) and to restore the predominance of formula-based plan grants.
  9. States need to address the problem of losses in the power sector in time bound manner.

15th Finance Commission

[edit]
Main article: Fifteenth Finance Commission of India

The Fifteenth Finance Commission was constituted by the Government of India, after the approval from the President of India, through a notification in the Gazette of India in November 2017.[7][8] Nand Kishore Singh was appointed as the commission's chairman, with its full-time members being Shaktikanta Das and Anoop Singh and its part-time members being Ramesh Chand and Ashok Lahiri.[9][10][11][12] However Ajay Narayan Jha was appointed replacing Shaktikanta Das who resigned from the commission to serve as the governor of the Reserve Bank of India.

The commission was set up to give recommendations for five years commencing on 1 April 2020.[7][8] The main tasks of the commission were to "strengthen cooperative federalism, improve the quality of public spending and help protect fiscal stability".[13][14] Some newspapers like The Hindu and The Economic Times noted that commission's job was harder because of the rollout of goods and service tax (GST), as, it had taken certain powers related to taxation away from states and the Union and had given it to the GST Council.[15][16]

Finance Commission allocation

[edit]

First Finance Commission proposed, the percentage share of net proceeds of income-tax assigned to the states should be following manner:[17]

First Finance commission 1952
State % of share
Bombay 17.5
U.P 15.75
Madras 15.25
West Bengal 11.2
Bihar 9.75
Madhya Pradesh 5.25
Hyderabad 4.5
Odisha 3.5
Rajasthan 3.5
Punjab 3.25
Travancore 2.5
Assam 2.25
Madhya Bharat 1.75
Saurashtra 1
PEPSU 0.75
  • 2nd Finance Commission 1957, 3rd Finance Commission 1961, 4th Finance Commission 1965 and 5th Finance Commission 1969
State 2nd FC % of share 3rd FC % of share 4th FC % of share 5th FC % of share
Uttar Pradesh 16.36 14.42 14.6 16.01
Bombay 15.97 13.41 14.28 11.4
West Bengal 10.09 12.09 10.91 9.11
Bihar 9.94 9.73 9.03 9.99
Madras 8.4 8.13 8.34 8.18
Andhra Pradesh 8.12 7.71 7.34 8.01
Madhya Pradesh 6.42 6.41 6.47 7.09
Mysore 5.14 5.13 5.14 5.4
Gujarat 4.78 5.29 5.13
Punjab 4.24 4.49 4.36 2.55
Rajasthan 4.09 3.97 3.97 4.34
Odisha 3.73 3.44 3.4 3.75
Kerala 3.64 3.35 3.59 3.83
Assam 2.44 2.44 2.44 2.67
Jammu & Kashmir 1.08 0.7 0.73 0.79
Haryana 1.73
Union Territory 1 3 2.5 2.6
Nagaland 0.07 0.08


  • 6th Finance Commission 1973, 7th Finance Commission 1978, 8th Finance Commission 1984 and 9th Finance Commission 1990
State 6th Fin. Com. % of share 7th Fin. com. % of share 8th Fin. Com. % of share 9th Fin. Com. % of share
Uttar Pradesh 15.23 15.42 17.907 16.786
Maharashtra 11.05 10.95 8.392 8.191
Bihar 9.61 9.53 12.08 12.418
West Bengal 8.89 8.015 7.8 7.976
Tamilnadu 7.94 8.05 7.565 7.931
Andhra Pradesh 7.76 8.021 8.187 8.208
Madhya Pradesh 7.3 7.35 8.378 8.185
Gujarat 5.55 5.96 4.049 4.55
Karnataka 5.33 5.44 4.979 4.928
Rajasthan 4.5 4.362 4.545 4.836
Kerala 3.92 3.95 3.76 3.729
Odisha 3.73 3.738 4.202 4.326
Punjab 2.75 2.73 1.744 1.706
Assam 2.54 2.52 2.879 2.631
Haryana 1.77 1.819 1.074 1.224
Jammu Kashmir 0.81 0.818 0.838 0.695
Himachal Pradesh 0.6 0.595 0.555 0.595
Tripura 0.27 0.26 0.269 0.303
Manipur 0.18 0.19 0.22 0.171
Meghalaya 0.18 0.18 0.184 0.208
Goa NA NA NA 0.11
Nagaland 0.09 0.085 0.088 0.096
Mizoram NA NA NA 0.073
Sikkim NA 0.035 0.035 0.03
  • 10th Finance Commission 1995, 11th Finance Commission, 12th Finance Commission, 13th Finance Commission, 14th Finance Commission and 15th Finance Commission[18]
State 10th FC % 11th FC % 12th FC % 13th FC % 14th FC % 15th FC %
Andhra Pradesh 8.465 7.701 7.36 6.937 4.305 4.047
Arunachala pradesh 0.244 0.328 1.37 1.757
Assam 2.784 3.285 3.24 3.628 3.311 3.128
Bihar 12.861 14.597 11.03 10.917 9.665 10.058
Chhattisgarh 2.65 2.47 3.08 3.407
Goa 0.18 0.206 0.266 0.378 0.386
Gujarat 4.406 2.821 3.57 3.041 3.084 3.478
Haryana 1.238 0.944 1.08 1.048 1.084 1.093
Himachal Pradesh 0.704 0.683 0.52 0.781 0.713 0.83
Jammu & Kashmir 1.097 1.29 1.551 1.854
Jharkhand 3.36 2.802 3.139 3.307
Karnataka 5.339 4.93 4.46 4.328 4.713 3.647
Kerala 3.839 3.057 2.67 2.341 2.5 1.925
Madhya Pradesh 8.29 8.838 6.71 7.12 7.548 7.85
Maharashtra 8.126 4.632 5 5.199 5.521 6.317
Manipur 0.282 0.366 0.451 0.617 0.716
Meghalaya 0.283 0.342 0.408 0.642 0.767
Mizoram 0.149 0.198 0.269 0.46 0.5
Nagaland 0.181 0.22 0.314 0.498 0.569
Odisha 4.495 5.056 5.16 4.779 4.642 4.528
Punjab 1.461 1.147 1.3 1.389 1.577 1.807
Rajasthan 5.551 5.473 5.61 5.853 5.495 6.026
Sikkim 0.126 0.184 0.239 0.367 0.388
Tamil Nadu 6.637 5.385 5.31 4.969 4.023 4.079
Telangana 2.437 2.102
Tripura 0.378 0.487 0.511 0.642 0.708
Uttar Pradesh 17.811 19.798 19.26 19.677 17.959 17.939
Uttarakhand 1.12 1.052 1.118
West Bengal 7.471 8.116 7.06 7.264 7.324 7.523

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Finance Commission

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Finance Commission of is a constitutional body constituted by the President under Article 280 of the every five years, or earlier if deemed necessary, to formulate recommendations on the distribution of net tax proceeds between the Union and the states, principles governing the allocation of grants-in-aid from the Union to states facing revenue deficits, and augmentation of state consolidated funds for local bodies such as panchayats and municipalities. Comprising a chairman with experience in public affairs and four other members expert in financial matters, government service, or related fields, the commission operates independently to assess fiscal needs and capacities, ensuring equitable resource sharing in 's federal structure. Successive Finance Commissions, starting with the first appointed in 1951 for the period beginning 1952, have played a pivotal role in shaping India's by addressing evolving economic challenges, such as balancing developmental expenditures with revenue constraints and promoting fiscal discipline among states. Their recommendations, while advisory and subject to parliamentary approval, have influenced major policy decisions, including vertical shares—recently set at 41% by the 15th Finance Commission for 2021–2026—and horizontal allocations based on criteria like , area, and fiscal . Notable aspects include the commission's emphasis on for sectors like and , reflecting a data-driven approach to incentivize efficient over mere population-based entitlements. The body's quasi-judicial nature underscores its commitment to impartiality, drawing on empirical assessments of state finances rather than political considerations, though debates persist over the adequacy of in addressing regional disparities amid India's diverse economic landscape. By periodically recalibrating fiscal transfers, the Finance Commission mitigates potential conflicts in Centre-state relations, fostering grounded in constitutional mandates.

Overview

Establishment and Mandate

The Finance Commission of India was established as a quasi-judicial constitutional body under Article 280 of the Constitution, which requires the President to appoint a commission comprising a chairman and four other members within two years of the Constitution's commencement on January 26, 1950, and at intervals not exceeding five years thereafter. The inaugural commission was constituted on January 22, 1951, under the chairmanship of K.C. Neogy, with its recommendations covering the five-year period from April 1, 1952, to March 31, 1957. This periodic reconstitution—extended to six years for the (2021–2026)—ensures ongoing review of fiscal arrangements amid evolving economic conditions. The Commission's core mandate, as delineated in Article 280(3), centers on recommending the distribution of the net proceeds of taxes levied and collected by the Union government between the Union and the states, including the allocation among states themselves. It also advises on principles governing grants-in-aid from the Union's to revenue-deficient states under Article 275, as well as measures to augment state s for local bodies like panchayats and municipalities, following the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments. These functions address inherent vertical fiscal imbalances arising from the Constitution's assignment of major tax powers (e.g., , ) to the center while devolving expenditure responsibilities (e.g., , ) disproportionately to states. Post-independence, the Commission emerged to rectify stark fiscal disparities, where states' own tax revenues averaged below 10% of total public revenues in the early , exacerbated by uneven , the integration of princely states, and limited state-level tax bases compared to central elastic revenues. Empirical assessments in early commissions highlighted states' aggregate revenue deficits at approximately 20–25% of their expenditures, necessitating structured transfers to sustain federal viability without eroding incentives for state-level fiscal prudence. By prioritizing criteria like , fiscal capacity, and effort in formulas, the mandate fosters causal equity—allocating resources to mitigate genuine gaps while discouraging dependency through performance-linked grants.

Role in Fiscal Federalism

The contributes to in by recommending mechanisms for vertical devolution, which allocates a share of central revenues to states to mitigate the imbalance arising from the Union's greater revenue-raising capacity compared to states' expenditure responsibilities. This process addresses the structural asymmetry where the collects most taxes under the Constitution's division of powers, ensuring states can fund like , and without excessive borrowing. Horizontal devolution, in turn, distributes the state share among individual states based on criteria such as fiscal capacity and need, promoting equity while accounting for disparities in economic output and administrative efficiency. By linking devolution to objective metrics like states' GDP contributions and fiscal effort—measured through own-tax revenue growth—the Commission incentivizes states to enhance revenue mobilization and expenditure efficiency, fostering over dependency on ad hoc central transfers. This approach counters tendencies toward fiscal profligacy by rewarding prudent , such as reduced revenue deficits, rather than subsidizing inefficiencies that perpetuate reliance on grants-in-aid. Empirical analyses indicate that such performance-oriented criteria have correlated with improved state-level fiscal outcomes in periods following Commission awards, though implementation varies by state commitment to reforms. Critiques portraying central devolution as exploitative overlook causal factors rooted in state-level mismanagement, including populist policies that inflate subsidies and welfare without corresponding measures, leading to persistently high -to-GDP ratios in affected regions. For example, states with histories of expansive freebie schemes have exhibited burdens exceeding 30% of GSDP, driven by structural shortfalls and inefficient spending rather than solely vertical imbalances. The Commission's emphasis on fiscal discipline in recommendations thus promotes causal realism, attributing outcomes to states' choices and incentivizing sustainable practices to balance autonomy with .

Article 280 Provisions

Article 280 of the Indian Constitution mandates the establishment of a Finance Commission to address the distribution of fiscal resources between the Union and the states, forming the core constitutional basis for periodic . Under clause (1), the President is required to constitute the Commission within two years of the Constitution's commencement on January 26, 1950, and thereafter at the expiry of every fifth year or earlier if deemed necessary; the body consists of a Chairman and four other members. This provision ensures regular review of revenue-sharing arrangements, reflecting the framers' intent to institutionalize a mechanism independent of executive discretion for equitable resource allocation. Clause (3) outlines the Commission's primary duties, directing it to recommend to the President: (a) the distribution between the Union and states of net proceeds from divisible taxes, including allocation among states; (b) principles governing grants-in-aid from the of to states with inadequate revenues; and (d) any other matters referred by the President concerning sound finance. Subsequent amendments via the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments in 1992 and 1993 added clauses (bb) and (c), extending recommendations to measures augmenting state s for supplementing Panchayats and Municipalities based on state-level commissions' inputs. These duties underscore the Commission's role in mitigating fiscal imbalances, where the Union's expansive tax powers under the 1935 Government of India Act had historically concentrated revenues centrally, leaving provinces reliant on transfers that averaged less than 50% of provincial expenditures in the pre-independence era. The recommendations under Article 280(3) are advisory in character, submitted to the President for placement before both Houses of alongside an explanatory memorandum as per Article 281, allowing legislative scrutiny and potential modification through law rather than outright rejection. This structure binds the executive to implement the recommendations unless enacts alterations, providing democratic oversight while preventing unilateral central overrides; in practice, governments have accepted over 90% of recommendations across commissions since , though deviations occur via parliamentary action. The provision's design counters the fiscal dominance observed under the , where provincial revenues constituted only about 20-25% of total collections amid central borrowing powers, fostering a more balanced federal framework post-independence.

Finance Commission Act, 1951

The Finance Commission (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1951 (Act No. 33 of 1951), enacted on August 18, 1951, serves as the primary enabling legislation to implement Article 280 of the Indian by stipulating the procedural framework for the Finance Commission's operations, including its powers to gather evidence and determine its working methods. This Act designates the Commission as an advisory body tasked with reviewing fiscal matters through structured inquiries, empowering it to compel submissions of empirical data such as and economic indicators from Union and state governments to inform recommendations on . By mandating verifiable information over , the Act prioritizes data-driven assessments, ensuring recommendations derive from audited fiscal realities rather than normative appeals for equity. Under Section 7 of the Act, the Commission possesses quasi-judicial authority akin to a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for summoning witnesses, enforcing attendance, discovering and producing documents, and receiving evidence on affidavits, thereby facilitating rigorous evidentiary proceedings grounded in factual submissions from stakeholders. Section 6 grants the Commission autonomy to regulate its own procedure, including the conduct of meetings and delegation of functions to members or staff, which supports efficient handling of complex fiscal data without undue procedural rigidity. Reports prepared under these provisions are submitted directly to the President, who lays them before both Houses of Parliament along with an explanatory memorandum, ensuring transparency in the advisory process while binding the executive to consider but not mandatorily implement the findings. The Act has undergone amendments to refine operational aspects, such as provisions for salaries and allowances under the Finance Commission (Salaries and Allowances) Act, 1951, and extensions of specific commissions' working terms via under its flexible framework, as seen in the prolongation of the Fourteenth Finance Commission's tenure to December 31, 2014, to complete deliberations. These adjustments accommodate evolving fiscal complexities without altering the core emphasis on empirical rigor, as the Commission must base its quasi-judicial inquiries on quantifiable state finances and revenue projections submitted under oath or .

Member Qualifications and Disqualifications

The qualifications for appointment to the Finance Commission are outlined in Section 3 of the Finance Commission (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1951, emphasizing expertise in relevant domains to promote informed fiscal recommendations. The Chairman must possess experience in public affairs, while the four other members are selected from individuals who are, or have been, or are qualified to be Judges of a High Court; or hold special knowledge of government finances and accounts; or have wide experience in financial matters and administration; or possess special knowledge of economics. These criteria prioritize technocratic competence, as evidenced by appointments such as Y. V. Reddy, an economist and former Reserve Bank of India Governor, to chair the 13th Finance Commission (2007–2010), and Arvind Panagariya, an economist and former Vice Chairman of NITI Aayog, to chair the 16th Finance Commission (constituted in 2023). Disqualifications, detailed in Sections 4 and 5 of the same Act, safeguard the Commission's by barring individuals with conflicts or impairments that could undermine . A person is disqualified if they are of unsound mind, an undischarged insolvent, or convicted of an offense involving ; additionally, the President must satisfy that no appointee has a financial or other interest likely to prejudicially affect the performance of their functions, with members required to disclose such information as demanded. These provisions exclude partisan or compromised figures, reinforcing the body's role in objective fiscal rather than political allocation.

Terms of Office and Remuneration

The for the Chairman and members of the Finance Commission is specified by the in the order of appointment and extends until the submission of the Commission's or as otherwise determined, typically spanning approximately two years to allow for comprehensive and recommendation . This duration aligns with the practical timeline for commissions to analyze fiscal data and deliberate, as evidenced by the 16th Finance Commission's term from December 2023 until October 2025 or submission, whichever occurs earlier. Members are eligible for reappointment at the President's discretion, provided their continued service remains necessary for the Commission's objectives, though historical practice shows such reappointments to be infrequent across the 16 commissions constituted since , occurring in only isolated cases like select members transitioning from the 15th to the 16th Commission. This rarity supports structural by limiting prolonged tenure, which could otherwise foster alignment with recurrent political or interest-group pressures over empirical fiscal assessment. Salaries, allowances, and conditions of service for the Chairman and members are determined by the President, with provisions for whole-time or part-time engagement as specified, ensuring remuneration commensurate with the Commission's quasi-judicial status and the expertise required. These are fixed by the under the Finance Commission (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1951, and adjusted periodically to reflect prevailing norms for senior public servants, thereby incentivizing impartiality without dependency on post-service prospects. Specific rates, such as daily allowances for travel, have evolved from early post-independence figures (e.g., Rs. 60 per day in select cities under 1951 rules) to contemporary equivalents tied to governmental pay scales, though exact current amounts remain administratively set per commission.

Functions and Powers

Tax Devolution Recommendations

The Finance Commission's tax devolution recommendations determine the vertical share of the Union's net tax proceeds allocated to states from the divisible pool, which excludes cesses, surcharges, and certain non-shareable levies such as those on professions or entertainment. This untied transfer constitutes the largest component of central fiscal transfers, enabling states to address expenditure responsibilities without conditionalities and incentivizing efficient own-revenue mobilization. The divisible pool primarily includes corporation tax, personal income tax, central GST (after sharing with states under GST regime), and duties, reflecting a constitutional mandate under Article 270 and 271 to equitably distribute resources while preserving the Union's fiscal capacity for national priorities like defense and debt servicing. Historical trends indicate a progressive expansion in the states' share to enhance . Finance Commission (2010–2015) recommended 32% devolution from the divisible pool, prioritizing central needs amid post-global recovery. This rose markedly to 42% under the 14th Finance Commission (2015–2020), justified by assessments of states' higher growth-linked expenditures and lower borrowing costs compared to the Union, thereby promoting efficiency through larger predictable flows that reduced reliance on discretionary plan assistance. The 15th Finance Commission (2021–2026) adjusted this to 41% to account for the bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir, excluding it from the shareable pool while maintaining the substantive 42% for remaining states; actual releases exceeded ₹10 lakh crore annually by 2024, underscoring implementation fidelity despite revenue volatility from the . These recommendations incorporate efficiency incentives by linking devolution quantum to projections of states' fiscal capacity and prudence, discouraging over-borrowing and encouraging base expansion. For instance, higher percentages correlate with commissions' emphasis on states' ability to fund maintenance expenditures independently, as evidenced by the 14th Commission's rationale that untied funds would spur better public over earmarked grants. Critics alleging central fiscal dominance overlook states' exclusive taxation powers over , alcohol, stamps, and duties, alongside GST compensation mechanisms and Article 293 borrowing autonomy, which collectively provide revenue buffers independent of . Empirical data from post-14th FC periods show states' own revenues growing at 12–15% annually, outpacing growth, validating the incentive structure for self-reliance. The exclusion of cesses and surcharges from the pool—rising from 10% of gross in 2014–15 to over 20% by 2023–24—has narrowed the effective as a proportion of total central collections, prompting debates on whether this circumvents FC intent. However, commissions have upheld this distinction, as these levies fund specific purposes like (cess) or (surcharges), with parliamentary oversight ensuring targeted use rather than general . Future commissions, including the 16th (2026–2031), are likely to scrutinize this trend to sustain vertical balance, given states' demonstrated capacity to absorb larger shares without fiscal slippage.

Grants-in-Aid and Fiscal Measures

The Finance Commission recommends principles and quantum of grants-in-aid under Article 280(3)(b) to supplement state s for states assessed as needing assistance, disbursed from the Union's pursuant to Article 275(1). These address post- fiscal gaps, particularly post-devolution deficit (PDRDG) calculated after accounting for devolution, aimed at enabling states to meet committed expenditures without deficits. Unlike shares, which are formula-based entitlements, these are non-lapsable and targeted at specific deficiencies, such as maintenance of core services or equalization of fiscal capacities across states with varying bases and expenditure needs. Key categories include PDRDG for revenue shortfalls, to panchayats and municipalities under Articles 243-I and 243-Y to bolster , and calamity assistance for and , with allocations conditioned on states' fiscal and adherence to correction paths like debt sustainability targets. (2015-2020) streamlined into three channels—PDRDG totaling ₹1,81,077 for 11 deficit states, body of ₹2,87,000 (10% -linked for reforms in power and sectors), and of ₹61,239 —eschewing sector-specific allocations to prioritize fiscal consolidation amid higher . (2021-2026) escalated total to ₹10.33 , with ₹2.94 in PDRDG for 17 states to phase out deficits by 2026, ₹4.36 for bodies (including incentives for reforms and efficiency), and ₹1.20 for s, emphasizing measurable outcomes like reduced fiscal slippage. Fiscal measures embedded in these recommendations promote discipline by linking disbursals to verifiable reforms, such as achieving fiscal deficit targets under the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management framework or implementing efficiency audits, reducing from unconditional aid. Empirical trends show declining PDRDG reliance: the share of such grants in total Finance Commission transfers fell from prominent roles in earlier commissions (e.g., significant in for multiple states) to targeted support post the 14th Commission's 42% hike, which eliminated deficits for most states and shifted focus to performance-tied incentives fostering revenue mobilization and expenditure restraint over perpetual dependency. This evolution underscores grants as transitional tools for capacity-building rather than entrenched entitlements, with states like those in southern exhibiting lower grant dependence due to stronger own-tax efforts.

Advisory Scope and Limitations

The recommendations of the Finance Commission are advisory in nature and lack legal binding force on the Union or state governments. Under Article 281 of the , the President must lay the Commission's report before each House of , accompanied by an explanatory memorandum detailing the executive's proposed actions, which facilitates parliamentary scrutiny but does not compel adherence. Implementation of accepted recommendations typically occurs through annual Finance Acts or Appropriation Acts, providing a mechanism for accountability while allowing the discretion in adoption. The Commission's advisory scope has broadened beyond core distribution to encompass for augmenting resources of panchayats and municipalities, as enabled by the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments of 1992, which inserted clauses into Article 280(3) for such measures. Later iterations have incorporated assessments of debt sustainability, including recommendations on fiscal deficit targets and borrowing limits to promote long-term for both central and state entities. These expansions reflect evolving needs but remain confined to quinquennial reviews without authority over ongoing policy enforcement. A primary limitation stems from the absence of direct enforcement powers, enabling deviations from recommended norms; notably, the Union has increasingly relied on non-shareable cesses and surcharges, which bypass state entitlements under the divisible tax pool. For example, after the Fourteenth Finance Commission's 42% vertical devolution recommendation effective from 2015-16, the effective state share eroded as cesses and surcharges rose from 9.5% of gross in 2014-15 to 20.2% by 2022-23, effectively retaining more resources at the center. This practice underscores systemic challenges in upholding commission directives amid central fiscal priorities, though parliamentary processes offer indirect checks without coercive remedies.

Historical Development

Inception and Early Commissions (1949–1970)

The Finance Commission of India was first constituted on November 22, 1951, by President under Article 280 of the Constitution, tasked with recommending the distribution of net proceeds from income taxes between the Union and states for the quinquennium 1952–1957, amid the post-independence imperative to integrate fragmented fiscal systems following the merger of over 500 princely states into the Union. Chaired by K.C. Neogy, the First Finance Commission emphasized fiscal unification, addressing the incorporation of princely states' revenues—previously outside the British India's tax framework—into a cohesive national structure, as these entities had operated semi-autonomously until their integration between 1947 and 1950. The commission recommended allocating 55% of the net proceeds of income taxes to the states, an increase from the interim 50% statutory share under the Constitution, while also devising principles for grants-in-aid to cover state deficits, estimated at over Rs. 5 crores annually, prioritizing populous and revenue-deficient regions to mitigate regional disparities evident from early post-independence revenue data showing stark variations in per capita incomes across states like and Bombay. This approach reflected a causal focus on equity to stabilize federal finances during centralization for the First Five-Year Plan (1951–1956), which demanded coordinated resource pooling for infrastructure amid limited state capacities. The Second Finance Commission, appointed on June 1, 1956, and chaired by , covered 1957–1962 and adapted recommendations to the expanding needs of the Second Five-Year Plan, raising the states' share in proceeds to 60% and substantially increasing grants-in-aid to Rs. 37 crores per year to support state-level development expenditures on and , where empirical assessments revealed persistent backwardness in eastern states. It introduced criteria beyond mere —such as state differentials—for horizontal devolution, acknowledging data from the 1951 Census and revenue statistics that correlated lower growth with fiscal under-resourcing, while advising on augmentation of state revenues through better tax administration to reduce reliance on central transfers. This marked an early shift from pure unification toward efficiency considerations, as planning data indicated that unconditional grants fostered dependency without incentivizing local revenue . Subsequent commissions refined these principles amid growing central planning outlays. The Third Finance Commission (1960–1965), under A.K. Chanda, maintained the 60% income tax share but extended state entitlements to 100% of estate duties on agricultural land and a portion of export duties, with grants calibrated to cover projected deficits from Third Plan investments, using 1961 Census data to highlight disparities where states like Orissa lagged in revenue buoyancy. The Fourth (1966–1969), chaired by P.V. Rajamannar, elevated the aggregate state share to 65% of divisible taxes, emphasizing grants for backward areas based on indices of social and economic development, responsive to evidence of uneven plan implementation where equity grants correlated with reduced inter-state income gaps. By the Fifth Finance Commission (1969–1974), led by Mahavir Tyagi and operating into the early 1970s, recommendations sustained the 65% devolution while incorporating fiscal discipline metrics like expenditure patterns, as data from prior plans showed that targeted grants improved state efficiency in sectors like power and transport, balancing equity with incentives for growth-oriented reforms. These early bodies thus laid foundational patterns for federal fiscal federalism, prioritizing integration and disparity redressal through verifiable metrics amid centralized planning, without preempting later efficiency-driven evolutions.

Evolution in Reforms (1971–2000)

The Sixth Finance Commission, reporting in 1973, addressed mounting state debt burdens amid rising plan expenditures, recommending debt relief measures and grants-in-aid totaling Rs. 2,509.61 crore under Article 275(1) to stabilize subnational finances, while urging states to enhance own-tax revenues through better administration. This approach marked an early shift from pure gap-filling grants toward conditional support tied to administrative efficiency, reflecting critiques of inefficient public spending under centralized planning. The Seventh Finance Commission (1978), constituted post the 1975-1977 —a period of fiscal profligacy and suppressed economic activity—reassessed center-state resource shares, recommending 40% of proceeds to states and adjustments for estate duties and excise, amid efforts to rebuild trust in federal fiscal mechanisms strained by authoritarian interventions. It emphasized monitoring grant utilization for specific purposes like relief, countering tendencies toward unchecked that had exacerbated deficits. Subsequent commissions intensified incentives for fiscal prudence. The Eighth (1984) prioritized state-level , directing states to meet targets for additional tax revenues and non-tax collections to fund development plans, projecting cumulative yields from such measures at significant levels by 1985. The Ninth (1989) advanced this by evaluating state fiscal needs via tax effort indices and expenditure restraint, advocating monitored grants to enforce economy in spending and reduce dependency on central transfers. The Tenth (1994), shaped by the 1991 economic crisis that exposed unsustainable deficits and import reliance under prior policies, explicitly linked fiscal discipline to avoiding revenue account deficits and controlling overall expenditure, while endorsing market-oriented state reforms to generate surpluses for capital investment. It recommended tying to performance, promoting tax devolution formulas that rewarded efficient resource use over entitlement, thereby nudging states toward self-reliant growth amid . This evolution underscored commissions' role in curbing over-centralized fiscal by enforcing subnational accountability.

Modern Era and Challenges (2001–Present)

The Eleventh Finance Commission, appointed in 2000, maintained the states' share in central taxes at 29.5 percent while introducing significant grants totaling Rs. 11,000 for local bodies, including panchayats and municipalities, to strengthen fiscal amid ongoing . This reflected adaptations to globalization's demands for efficient subnational governance, with recommendations emphasizing revenue augmentation for urban and rural local bodies to handle increased service delivery pressures. The Twelfth Finance Commission, constituted in 2002, marginally raised the to 30.5 percent, incorporating fiscal discipline incentives like for states achieving revenue surplus targets, thereby addressing rising state expenditure amid post-liberalization growth. The , established in 2007, further elevated the share to 32 percent, prioritizing grants for local bodies and introducing performance-based incentives for fiscal prudence, which aimed to counter populist spending trends by linking transfers to deficit reduction norms. The introduction of the Goods and Services Tax in 2017 posed new challenges, as states faced revenue shortfalls despite initial compensation via , with the mechanism's extension beyond 2022 exacerbating fiscal strains through centralization of tax powers and reduced state autonomy in revenue generation. Concurrently, the proliferation of central and surcharges—rising to nearly 20 percent of gross by 2025—has eroded the divisible pool, limiting effective despite nominal percentages and prompting states to demand inclusion of these levies in shareable resources. State debt vulnerabilities have intensified, exemplified by Punjab's ratio exceeding 40 percent of GSDP (reaching 46.6 percent by 2023-24), driven by populist subsidies and freebie schemes that crowd out capital investments. RBI assessments indicate that states adopting structural reforms, such as power sector viability and expenditure rationalization, exhibit superior fiscal indicators—like lower deficits and higher own-revenue buoyancy—compared to those reliant on pre-election largesse, where liabilities persist above pre-pandemic levels despite aggregate improvements. NITI Aayog's Fiscal Health Index corroborates this, ranking reform-oriented states higher in metrics while penalizing high-freebie jurisdictions through elevated trajectories.

General Recommendation Patterns

The recommendations of successive Finance Commissions for vertical —the proportion of net proceeds from central taxes allocated to states—have generally trended upward, aiming to address the vertical where states incur substantial expenditures on devolved functions like and but collect limited revenues. Early commissions, such as the First (1952–1957), focused primarily on sharing proceeds at around 55% for that tax alone, but overall devolution remained modest, averaging below 30% of shareable central taxes through the 12th Commission (2005–2010). This evolved to 32% under the 13th Commission for 2010–2015, reflecting incremental adjustments for state needs amid . A marked shift occurred with the 14th Finance Commission, which raised the states' share to 42% for 2015–2020, a 10 increase over the prior period, prioritizing tax as the main transfer mechanism to enhance state autonomy. The 15th Commission slightly adjusted this to 41% for 2021–2026, maintaining the elevated level while incorporating fiscal discipline criteria. These hikes align with broader goals, yet they embody a : bolstering state capacities for local priorities against central imperatives for national-scale spending, such as defense and , which constitute over 20% of union expenditures and are not fully offset in devolution formulas. Despite nominal increases, effective devolution has been eroded by the exclusion of cesses and surcharges from the divisible pool, which grew from 10.4% of gross central tax revenues in 2011–12 to nearly 20% by 2021–22. This non-shareable portion shrank the pool to about 75–80% of total revenues, reducing actual transfers; for instance, during the 14th Commission's tenure, realized devolution averaged 33.6% of gross collections against the recommended 42% of the narrowed pool. Critics, including state finance officials, argue this trend undermines the commissions' intent, as central reliance on such levies—often for specific purposes like education or health—circumvents sharing norms without corresponding expenditure transfers, effectively prioritizing short-term central flexibility over equitable federal resource allocation.
Finance CommissionAward PeriodRecommended States' Share (%)
13th2010–201532
14th2015–202042
15th2021–202641

Horizontal Allocation Criteria

The horizontal allocation of tax among Indian states determines the distribution of the states' collective share from the central divisible pool, using weighted criteria to balance equity, , and incentives. These formulas prioritize objective metrics such as , fiscal capacity differentials, and resource endowments, avoiding simplistic per-capita equality to account for variations in and economic potential that influence growth outcomes. Empirical data from state-level GDP trends indicate that quality, proxied by tax effort, correlates more strongly with sustained development than equal distribution alone. Key criteria have evolved across commissions, with the (2015–2020) assigning weights as follows: 2011 (17.5%), area (15%), and cover (10%), income distance (50%), and effort (7.5%). Income distance measures the gap between a state's per capita net state domestic product (NSDP) and the highest-performing state's, normalized to favor lower-income states while rewarding relative efficiency. effort gauges a state's own as a of potential, incentivizing fiscal without penalizing inherent . Area and forests address geographic disadvantages, with forests weighted by density and extent to compensate states like those in the Northeast for ecological burdens. The (2021–2026) refined the formula to emphasize demographic responsibility, using 1971 (15% weight) instead of 2011 data to penalize states with higher post-1971 rates, thereby rewarding stabilization efforts aligned with national goals. This shift, combined with demographic performance (12.5% weight)—calculated as the inverse of (TFR) relative to the national replacement level of 2.1 for states below it—aimed to incentivize control, as evidenced by states like those in the south receiving higher shares for achieving sub-replacement TFRs by 2011. Income distance retained prominence (45%), but and fiscal efforts each received 2.5%, promoting ; area and forests held at 15% and 10%, respectively.
CriterionFourteenth FC Weight (%)Fifteenth FC Weight (%)
Population (1971/2011)17.5 (2011)15 (1971)
Area1515
Forests/1010
Income Distance5045
Tax Effort7.52.5
Fiscal Effort—2.5
Demographic Performance—12.5
These weights reflect a causal emphasis on performance metrics, with data showing that states improving tax-to-GSDP ratios post-devolution experienced 1–2% higher annual growth rates compared to laggards. The approach mitigates by linking shares to verifiable outcomes rather than endowments alone, though debates persist on whether heavy income weighting perpetuates dependency in low-governance states.

Fiscal Discipline Guidelines

The Finance Commissions of have emphasized fiscal discipline as a cornerstone of subnational , recommending binding targets for states' fiscal deficits and debt-to-GSDP ratios to prevent unsustainable borrowing and ensure . These guidelines typically mandate a net fiscal deficit not exceeding 3% of Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) in normal times, with glide paths for gradual achievement during transition periods and escape clauses permitting temporary relaxations—up to 0.5 percentage points—for states demonstrating progress in power sector reforms, revenue enhancement, or during national calamities like pandemics or . Such targets are operationalized through states' adherence to their respective Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Acts, which require annual statements, medium-term fiscal frameworks, and central oversight via mechanisms like the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Review Committee. Empirical trends post-2000 reflect partial success in enforcing these norms: aggregate state fiscal deficits averaged over 4% of GSDP in the early 2000s but moderated to around 2.5-3% by the mid-2010s amid commission-driven incentives linking higher tax devolution to compliance. However, lapses persist in high-debt states, where deficits exceeded 3% in 2023-24 for 19 out of 28 states, often due to off-budget borrowings, populist subsidies, or weak mobilization, underscoring challenges despite monitoring tools like consolidated debt statements. These recommendations prioritize causal mechanisms of fiscal —such as avoiding spikes from overhangs and preserving fiscal space for shocks—over expansive deficit financing, which links to crowding out private and vulnerability to global rate hikes. Critics from expansionary fiscal perspectives, often aligned with Keynesian advocacy in academic circles, contend that rigid 3% caps hinder countercyclical spending in low-growth environments, yet commissions counter that market discipline via credible targets has historically lowered states' borrowing costs by signaling prudence to bond markets and rating agencies. This approach aligns with first-principles recognition that unchecked deficits erode credibility, as evidenced by India's state -to-GSDP ratios stabilizing below 30% in compliant periods versus spikes above 35% during slippages.

Notable Finance Commissions

Fourteenth Finance Commission (2015–2020)

The Fourteenth Finance Commission was constituted by the on 2 January 2013, under Article 280 of the , to make recommendations on the distribution of net proceeds of taxes between the Union and the states, among other fiscal matters, for the five-year period beginning 1 April 2015. Chaired by , former Governor of the , the commission submitted its report to the President on 15 December 2014. Its most prominent recommendation was to raise the states' share of the divisible pool of central taxes from 32 percent, as set by the , to 42 percent—a record increase aimed at enhancing states' fiscal predictability and autonomy through untied transfers. The commission prioritized devolution of shareable taxes over discretionary grants, arguing that predictable tax handles would empower states to align expenditures with local priorities rather than relying on centrally earmarked plan grants, which had previously distorted incentives and added administrative layers. This shift corresponded with the dissolution of the Planning Commission in and its replacement by , reducing the role of plan assistance and emphasizing normative assessments of states' revenue needs without distinguishing between plan and non-plan expenditures. Consequently, grants for planned schemes were minimized, with the commission allocating specific-purpose grants only for local bodies, disaster management, and sector-specific needs like power sector reforms, totaling about 2.87 percent of the divisible pool over the award period. Implementation of these recommendations initially boosted states' own fiscal capacities, enabling higher capital outlays in and development projects; for instance, the additional 10 percent revenue devolution facilitated increased budgetary spending on development, contributing to improved state-level fiscal positions and execution of autonomous initiatives. However, the elevated devolution reduced the Union's share to 58 percent, constraining central fiscal space amid concurrent challenges like the 2017 Goods and Services Tax rollout, which necessitated revenue compensation to states and amplified vertical fiscal pressures without corresponding expenditure cuts. While states gained greater discretion, this structure exposed the center to tighter borrowing constraints, highlighting tensions in federal during economic transitions.

Fifteenth Finance Commission (2021–2026)

The Fifteenth Finance Commission was constituted on November 27, 2017, under the chairmanship of Nand Kishore Singh, with the mandate to recommend the sharing of net proceeds of taxes between the Union and states for the five-year period originally envisioned as 2020–2025 but adjusted to 2021–2026 in its final report submitted to the President on November 9, 2020. The adjustment reflected fiscal disruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic, which strained public finances and necessitated revised projections for revenue and expenditure, including enhanced grants to address health infrastructure deficits exposed by the crisis. The Commission's terms of reference emphasized fiscal discipline, population management based on the 2011 Census, and performance incentives, departing from prior reliance on 1971 Census data to incentivize demographic stabilization. Vertical devolution was set at 41% of the Union's divisible pool for 2021–2026, a marginal reduction from the Fourteenth Commission's 42% due to the exclusion of Jammu and Kashmir and as Union territories post-2019 bifurcation, which removed their prior share from states' calculations. Horizontal allocation among states weighted criteria as follows: income distance (45%), population per 2011 Census (15%), area (15%), forest and ecology (10%), demographic performance via total fertility rates (12.5%), and effort (2.5%), aiming to balance equity with incentives for fiscal responsibility and . This formula projected states' share at ₹42.2 lakh crore over the period, supplemented by ₹10.33 lakh crore in , including revenue deficit to 17 states totaling ₹2.94 lakh crore. The shift to 2011 Census data sparked controversy, particularly among southern states like , , , and , which argued it penalized their successful family planning efforts—resulting in lower and thus reduced shares—while rewarding higher-fertility northern states despite the demographic performance adjustment. These states contended the formula undermined federal equity, as their lower total fertility rates (below replacement levels) aligned with national goals but translated to share losses of up to 1-2 percentage points compared to 1971-based projections. Grants emphasized performance linkages amid recovery, allocating ₹4.36 to local bodies (rural and urban) for basic services, with 60% tied to milestones in , , solid , and health infrastructure like facilities and ambulances. Health-specific grants totaled ₹70,051 , prioritizing pandemic-resilient upgrades such as oxygen plants and ICU beds at district levels. However, the Union's growing reliance on cesses and surcharges—excluded from the divisible pool—diluted effective , as these non-sharable revenues rose to offset GST compensation shortfalls, reducing states' actual access to projected shares by an estimated 1-2% of GDP equivalents in some analyses. Fiscal glide paths mandated states to achieve revenue balance by 2026, with sector-specific grants for power sector reforms and to enforce discipline.

Sixteenth Finance Commission (2026 Onward)

The Sixteenth Finance Commission was constituted on December 31, 2023, under Article 280 of the Indian Constitution, with , former Vice Chairman of and Professor at , appointed as its Chairman. The Commission's were approved by the Union Cabinet on November 29, 2023, tasking it with recommending the distribution of net proceeds of taxes between the Union and states, principles governing grants-in-aid, and measures to augment state consolidated funds for local bodies, covering the five-year period from April 1, 2026, to March 31, 2031. An advance cell was established in the on November 21, 2022, to prepare preliminary groundwork prior to formal setup. As of October 2025, the Commission's tenure has been extended until November 30 to refine its devolution formula, reflecting ongoing consultations across all 28 states to assess fiscal needs and capacities. Emerging priorities for the Commission include addressing contemporary challenges such as vulnerability, rapid , and technological integration in fiscal frameworks. Citizen groups and experts have urged incorporation of metrics into devolution criteria, emphasizing support for emission-intensive yet vulnerable regions and a national system to enhance resilience without compromising growth. Urban fiscal demands highlight the need to double intergovernmental transfers to cities, given projections of to 600 million by 2036, with focus on smaller cities as emerging tech hubs requiring grants. Panagariya's , informed by his economic , signals potential emphasis on data-driven allocations that incentivize state-level over ad-hoc entitlements. States with high indebtedness, such as and , have presented pleas for special financial packages during Commission visits. sought a Rs 1.32 rehabilitation grant, continuation of post-devolution deficit support, and conversion of its State Disaster Response Fund into a non-interest-bearing reserve, citing border vulnerabilities and accumulated SDRF balances exceeding Rs 12,000 . advocated raising states' tax share to 50 percent, alongside ecological and relief to offset fiscal strains. echoed similar demands for higher shares and , underscoring tensions in maintaining sanctity amid divergent state fiscal health. These inputs test the Commission's resolve to balance equity with fiscal discipline. The Commission's recommendations hold potential to align with India's Viksit Bharat@2047 vision of achieving a $30-40 through productivity-enhancing reforms, favoring incentives for private in job-rich sectors like and agro-processing over perpetual entitlements. Under Panagariya's guidance, empirical assessments of state performance could prioritize growth-oriented criteria, such as reductions and urban metrics, to foster long-term federal balance without undermining incentive structures.

Criticisms and Controversies

Demographic and Population-Based Penalties

The Fifteenth Finance Commission allocated 15% weight to population (based on 2011 Census data) and 12.5% to demographic performance in its horizontal devolution formula, marking a departure from prior commissions' reliance on 1971 Census figures to avoid penalizing states for post-1971 population growth. This adjustment aimed to reflect current demographic realities while rewarding states with slower population growth rates between 1971 and 2011 via the inverse of their growth ratio, yet it disproportionately impacted southern states like , , and , whose shares declined relative to northern counterparts due to lower total populations from effective . Southern leaders contended that the shift effectively imposes a "demographic penalty" by rewarding higher-fertility northern states—such as and —for sustained population expansion, with collective southern shares dropping by approximately 1-2 percentage points in effective compared to projections under the Fourteenth Commission's . For instance, Kerala's share fell from 2.50% under the Fourteenth to 1.92% under the Fifteenth, while Tamil Nadu's stabilized near 4.1% but lost ground amid overall vertical constraints. Proponents of the criteria, including Finance Ministry officials, argued it aligns with present needs and incentivizes nationwide reduction, as the demographic performance metric explicitly favors control efforts regardless of base . Empirical evidence underscores a between lower rates and enhanced : states like ( of 1.8 in 2019-21) and (1.7) boast rates exceeding 95% and higher scores (0.79 and 0.74, respectively, per 2022 subnational data) compared to high-fertility northern states like (3.0 TFR, 70.9% , HDI 0.61). This pattern challenges claims prioritizing equity via raw shares over efficiency incentives, as low-growth states demonstrate superior outcomes in education, health, and per capita GDP despite fiscal constraints. Nonetheless, the formula's dual structure—current for scale and performance adjustment for control—seeks to balance immediate equity demands with long-term behavioral incentives, though southern critiques persist that it fails to fully offset historical compliance with national policies.

Allegations of Political Favoritism

Opposition-ruled states such as and have accused the of political bias in Finance Commission devolutions, claiming that grants and tax shares disproportionately favor BJP-governed states. In 2018, chief ministers of three southern non-BJP states—, , and —met to protest the 15th Finance Commission's , alleging deliberate penalization through population-based criteria using the 2011 census, which reduced shares for states with lower fertility rates due to effective . Finance Minister in 2024 further critiqued central policies as discriminatory, pointing to withheld borrowings and declining local body grants under the 15th Commission, which he linked to political motivations amid the panel's visits. Similarly, faced allegations of grant diversions totaling Rs 330 crore from 15th Finance Commission funds, though state leaders attributed shortfalls to central withholding rather than fiscal lapses. The central government has dismissed these allegations as baseless, emphasizing that devolution formulas prioritize objective metrics like population, income distance, area, forest cover, and fiscal capacity over partisan lines. Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2018 described claims of bias in the 15th Commission's mandate as unfounded, while Finance Minister Arun Jaitley argued the population criterion rewards rather than punishes performance by adjusting for demographic realities without inherent prejudice against efficient states. Cesses and surcharges, often cited in disputes for funding national priorities like defense, are constitutionally outside the divisible pool and not subject to state shares, serving as tools for vertical fiscal needs rather than favoritism. Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) reports provide evidence of fiscal mismanagement in complaining states, correlating lower grants with objective indicators like high debt burdens and unutilized funds rather than solely political alignment. For instance, Kerala's persistent fiscal stress and West Bengal's grant diversions align with patterns of rising state debts—reaching 23% of GDP collectively by 2023—flagged in CAG audits as stemming from populist spending and weak revenue efforts, justifying conditional grants tied to performance reforms. An empirical analysis confirms political variables influence discretionary transfers but exert limited sway over formula-driven tax devolutions, which have maintained stable inter-state shares across commissions to mitigate overt bias. While isolated political pressures exist, commissions' data-centric approaches—incorporating fiscal discipline metrics—predominantly override them, rendering favoritism claims overstated absent proof of formula tampering.

Equity vs. Incentive Debates

The horizontal devolution formulas recommended by successive Finance Commissions have sparked debate over balancing equity—primarily through criteria like income distance and normalization—with -based measures such as effort and fiscal discipline, which aim to reward states for mobilization and prudent spending. Critics contend that heavy emphasis on equity perpetuates dependency among low-performing states by overlooking factors like internal migration and effort, potentially disincentivizing reforms; for instance, states with higher out-migration lose -based shares without compensatory adjustments for economic contributions elsewhere. Empirical analyses indicate that incorporating effort—measured as own- relative to potential—correlates with improved fiscal capacity, as seen in states like and , where higher effort indices from 2005–2015 preceded growth exceeding national averages by 2–3 percentage points annually. Proponents of incentives argue they foster causal improvements in state outcomes, evidenced by the Eleventh Finance Commission's introduction of fiscal discipline criteria in 2000, which linked 7.5% of to deficit reduction targets, resulting in aggregate state revenue deficits falling from 4.1% of GDP in 1999–2000 to 2.6% by 2004–05 across adopting states. Such measures prioritize verifiable performance over indefinite support for laggards, with studies showing that tax effort inclusion in the Thirteenth Finance Commission's (2.5% weight) boosted own-revenue by 0.15–0.20 points in high-effort states from 2010–15. Conversely, over-reliance on equity can entrench fiscal indiscipline, as observed when the de-emphasized these criteria in its core horizontal (2021–26), leading to criticisms that it rewarded persistent deficits in states like and , where deficits exceeded 3% of GSDP post-devolution despite . While incentives promote lower deficits and growth—e.g., performance-linked grants under the Thirteenth Commission reduced power sector losses by 15–20% in recipient states through targeted outcomes—they risk heightening regional tensions if poorer states perceive allocations as punitive, potentially fueling demands for special packages and unrest in areas like , where equity shares rose under the Fourteenth Commission (2015–20) but growth lagged at 4.5% annually versus 7% nationally. This underscores the need for hybrid approaches, as suggested for the Sixteenth Finance Commission, blending equity baselines with graduated incentives to align redistribution with empirical fiscal improvements without indefinite subsidization.

Achievements and Impact

Strengthening State Autonomy

The (2015–2020) markedly enhanced state autonomy by recommending a vertical of 42% of the Union's divisible pool to states, up from 32% under the Thirteenth Commission, thereby providing states with substantially larger unconditional transfers that minimized reliance on discretionary central grants. This shift empowered states to prioritize expenditures aligned with regional priorities, such as infrastructure and welfare, without the strings attached to scheme-specific funding, which had previously constrained policy flexibility. Subsequent implementation demonstrated tangible gains in resource predictability; for instance, tax devolution constituted a higher proportion of states' revenues post-2015, enabling proactive fiscal planning and reducing vulnerability to annual central budget negotiations. (2021–2026) sustained this momentum by recommending 41% devolution (adjusted for and Kashmir's reorganization), which supported state-level adaptations to GST-induced revenue transitions through bridged compensation, preserving operational independence amid unified taxation. These reforms have cultivated competitive by incentivizing states to bolster own-tax efforts—evident in cases where efficient performers saw annual own-tax growth exceeding 10% in the post-14th period—allowing differentiated growth strategies that challenge centralized dominance and affirm devolution's role in decentralizing decision-making.

Empirical Outcomes on Fiscal Health

The recommendations of Finance Commissions, particularly through increased tax devolution and performance-linked grants, contributed to stabilizing state -to-GSDP ratios in the period 2005–2015, as states aligned with fiscal responsibility frameworks influenced by earlier commissions. Empirical tests using the Bohn framework on 20 major states from 2005–06 to 2014–15 confirmed public sustainability, with primary surpluses responding positively to rising , reflecting improved fiscal post-FRBM Acts. Aggregate state remained below 25% of GSDP on average, supporting revenue mobilization and expenditure efficiency. In contrast, recent data reveal spikes in debt levels in states with weaker reform adherence, where ratios exceeded 30% of GSDP by March 2023 in eight cases, including (46.6% projected for 2025) and (45.2%). The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) reported state public debt tripling to ₹59.6 lakh crore over 2013–14 to 2022–23, reaching 23% of aggregate GSDP, driven by populist spending and off-budget borrowings in non-reformist states rather than growth-enhancing investments. RBI analyses indicate these elevations correlate with revenue deficits averaging 1.7% of GSDP in 2022–23, falling short of 15th Finance Commission targets for fiscal glide paths. Causal assessments link adherence to incentive-based transfers—such as those under the 14th Finance Commission for power reforms and revenue augmentation—with superior GSDP outcomes; states implementing these saw 1–2% higher annual growth relative to laggards, per on federal transfers' economic impact. Partial compliance with commission-mandated fiscal indicators, as verified in CAG and RBI state finances audits, bolstered shock resilience, with reform-adopting states maintaining lower committed expenditures (under 15% of revenue receipts) and higher own-tax buoyancy.

Persistent Challenges in Federal Balance

Despite the Fifteenth Finance Commission's recommendation for 41% of the divisible tax pool to states, the proliferation of non-shareable cesses and surcharges has significantly eroded the effective share available to states. Post the 2017 implementation of GST, central collections from cesses and surcharges rose from approximately ₹49,628 in 2010-11 to ₹2.25 in 2022-23, with their share in gross peaking at 20.2% in 2020-21 before declining to 14.5% in 2023-24. These revenues, excluded from the divisible pool, have shrunk states' fiscal space, with projections indicating central cess and surcharge inflows nearing ₹6 in FY26, up 10% from prior estimates. This trend has exacerbated India's vertical , where states bear 62.4% of total expenditure responsibilities but receive only 37.3% of revenues, a gap persisting and widening post-2018-19 despite enhanced devolution norms. Enforcement gaps in adhering to Finance Commission directives on fiscal consolidation further compound the issue, as states' own revenue efforts remain suboptimal amid rising off-budget borrowings and guarantees. On the state side, populist measures such as free electricity schemes and loan waivers have undermined fiscal discipline, contributing to a combined state fiscal deficit of 4.1% of GDP in 2021-22 and delaying compliance with recommended targets like 3% deficits by 2025-26. Addressing these requires constitutional mechanisms, including caps on cesses at 10% of gross and incentives tied to performance metrics, rather than unilateral central restrictions or state demands for unchecked shares.

References

  1. https://fincomindia.nic.in/about-us
  2. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/559924/
  3. https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-280-finance-commission/
  4. https://doe.gov.in/15th-finance-commission
  5. https://www.nextias.com/blog/finance-commission-of-india/
  6. https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/finance-commission-of-india/
  7. https://fincomindia.nic.in/
  8. https://prsindia.org/theprsblog/central-transfers-to-states-role-of-the-finance-commission
  9. https://doe.gov.in/files/rti_services_documents/Brief_of_FCD_1.pdf
  10. https://pubadmin.institute/public-finance-and-administration/finance-commission-india-in-fiscal-federalism
  11. https://testbook.com/articles/what-is-horizontal-and-vertical-tax-devolution
  12. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0970389621000240
  13. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5901023/
  14. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4414584
  15. https://biznewsweek.com/indias-states-drowning-in-debt-the-silent-crisis-crushing-the-common-man/
  16. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334289505_Structural_Problems_and_Fiscal_Management_of_States_in_India
  17. https://www.epw.in/journal/2025/18/sixteenth-finance-commission/discipline-and-efficiency-state-finances.html
  18. https://fincomindia.nic.in/constitutional-provisions
  19. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/1941?locale=en
  20. https://fincomindia.nic.in/finance-commission-act
  21. https://www.commonlii.org/in/legis/cen/num_act/fcpa1951466/
  22. https://fincomindia.nic.in/asset/pdf/commission-reports/14thFCReport.pdf
  23. https://pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=111021
  24. https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2025-03/11th-Finance-Commision.pdf
  25. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1941/5/a1951-33.pdf
  26. https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1980002
  27. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2134802
  28. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/govt-appoints-four-members-of-16th-finance-commission/article67795457.ece
  29. https://fincomindia.nic.in/finance-commission-rules
  30. https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/doc/rec/annex4.pdf
  31. https://fincomindia.nic.in/asset/doc/commission-reports/13th-FC/english/Chapter8.pdf
  32. https://nipfp.org.in/media/medialibrary/2024/07/Enhanced_Devolution_and_Fiscal_Space_at_the_State_Level_formated_final_MG.pdf
  33. https://prsindia.org/policy/report-summaries/report-15th-finance-commission-2021-26
  34. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2091732
  35. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/on-financial-devolution-among-states-explained/article67872209.ece
  36. https://www.ideasforindia.in/topics/money-finance/16th-finance-commission-towards-vertical-and-horizontal-balance.html
  37. https://fincomindia.nic.in/asset/doc/commission-reports/13th-FC/english/Chapter12.pdf
  38. https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-275-grants-from-the-union-to-certain-states/
  39. https://doe.gov.in/public-finance-states-division
  40. https://www.pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1693868
  41. https://fincomindia.nic.in/asset/doc/commission-reports/13th-FC/reports/report02.pdf
  42. https://www.nipfp.org.in/media/medialibrary/2024/07/Finaldraft_13.07.24.11am_Finance_Commission_Grnats_conditionality_Atrayee.pdf
  43. https://plutusias.com/strengthening-local-governance-the-role-of-the-fifteenth-finance-commission-grants/
  44. https://www.pmfias.com/finance-commission/
  45. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/are-states-getting-funds-they-are-entitled-from-the-centre/article67897234.ece
  46. https://www.thehindu.com/data/cess-and-surcharge-continue-to-shrink-states-tax-share/article69183690.ece
  47. https://www.iasgyan.in/daily-current-affairs/vertical-devolution-to-states
  48. https://forumias.com/blog/concerns-in-indias-fiscal-federalism-on-irregularities-in-vertical-devolution/
  49. https://fincomindia.nic.in/commission-reports-first
  50. https://scroll.in/article/875649/a-short-history-of-the-first-finance-commission-and-why-bengal-was-livid-with-it
  51. https://www.civilsdaily.com/important-finance-commissions-and-their-recommendations/
  52. https://fincomindia.nic.in/commission-reports-second
  53. https://fincomindia.nic.in/asset/doc/commission-reports/6th-FC/EM-6.pdf
  54. https://fincomindia.nic.in/commission-reports-seventh
  55. https://nipfp.org.in/media/documents/The_Ninth_Finance_Commission_Issues_And_Recommendations.pdf
  56. https://fincomindia.nic.in/asset/doc/commission-reports/10th-FC/chapter/chapter-2.pdf
  57. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4402661
  58. https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/budget_archive/es2000-01/chap25.pdf
  59. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4407488
  60. https://prsindia.org/budgets/discussionpapers/state-of-state-finances-2023-24
  61. https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/national/cess-now-20-of-tax-revenue-states-protest-shrinking-share-derek-obrien
  62. https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/chandigarh-news/punjab-second-most-indebted-state-in-country-reveals-data-101742847370065.html
  63. https://www.business-standard.com/economy/news/states-freebies-crowd-out-resources-needed-for-development-rbi-report-124121901079_1.html
  64. https://niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2025-01/Fiscal_Health_Index_24012025_Final.pdf
  65. http://dea.gov.in/files/press_release_documents/press_note_14th_finncomm.pdf
  66. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/concerns-over-cess-and-surcharges-in-india
  67. https://www.fortuneindia.com/opinion/funds-to-states-way-below-42-why-that-hurts-growth/106687
  68. https://www.shankariasparliament.com/current-affairs/center-state-finances
  69. https://cds.edu/wp-content/uploads/WP457.pdf
  70. https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/budget2015-2016/es2014-15/echapvol1-10.pdf
  71. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1693868
  72. https://nipfp.org.in/media/medialibrary/2024/08/WP_417_2024.pdf
  73. https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/budget2017-2018/es2016-17/echap06.pdf
  74. https://dea.gov.in/files/budget_division_documents/Volume_3_Centre_States.pdf
  75. https://fincomindia.nic.in/asset/doc/commission-reports/12th-FC/reports/eng/Chapter%252003.pdf
  76. https://prsindia.org/files/budget/State_of_State_Finances-2024-25.pdf
  77. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/display/book/9781475573664/ch006.xml
  78. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/24730580.2025.2554470?src=
  79. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/institutional-framework-assessment-india-states-spending-requirements-will-continue-to-outweigh-revenue-collection-s101634400
  80. https://nipfp.org.in/media/documents/WP_412_2024.pdf
  81. https://www.pib.gov.in/newsite/printrelease.aspx?relid=115810
  82. https://www.pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=113377
  83. https://www.ies.gov.in/pdfs/14th-finance-commission.pdf
  84. https://www.acuite.in/sector-alert-finance-commission-on-states.htm
  85. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378841424_Recommendations_Of_14th_Finance_Commission_Enabled_States_To_Improve_Their_Fiscal_Positions
  86. https://www.ey.com/content/dam/ey-unified-site/ey-com/en-in/insights/tax/economy-watch/ey-union-budgets-2015-to-2025-fiscal-reforms-for-long-term-impact.pdf
  87. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/15th-finance-commission-terms-of-reference-southern-states-accuse-centre-of-bias-jaitley-5132275/
  88. https://www.thenewsminute.com/news/explained-how-south-states-stand-lose-15th-finance-commission-recommendations-117406
  89. https://dea.gov.in/files/budget_division_documents/XVFC_VOL_I_Main_report_English.pdf
  90. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2000720
  91. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1980688
  92. https://www.facebook.com/EconomicTimes/posts/the-government-%25EF%25B8%258F-has-extended-the-16th-finance-commissions-tenure-till-november-/1286033736885865/
  93. https://www.greenpeace.org/india/en/press/17437/citizen-groups-urge-16th-finance-commission-to-prioritize-climate-adaptation/
  94. https://www.impriindia.com/insights/priorities-of-16th-finance-commission/
  95. https://x.com/APanagariya
  96. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/16th-finance-commission-visit-mann-govt-crore-special-package-hike-taxes-9469785/
  97. https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/chandigarh-news/punjab-seeks-special-rehab-package-admits-to-12k-cr-sdrf-balance-101759263743421.html
  98. https://www.millenniumpost.in/bengal/bengal-urges-16th-finance-commission-to-increase-states-share-in-tax-devolution-to-50-589259
  99. https://www.livemint.com/economy/punjab-himachal-west-bengal-seek-central-revenue-relief-16th-finance-commission-11757821568706.html
  100. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2025/02/28/india-accelerated-reforms-needed-to-speed-up-growth-and-achieve-high-income-status-by-2047
  101. https://www.livemint.com/opinion/online-views/the-16th-finance-commission-could-catalyze-climate-governance-in-india-climate-change-carbon-market-emissions-reforms-11754282021027.html
  102. https://prsindia.org/theprsblog/recommendations-15th-finance-commission-2020-21
  103. https://www.business-standard.com/economy/news/north-south-divide-decoding-unfair-tax-money-devolution-to-southern-states-124020701630_1.html
  104. https://accountabilityindia.in/blog/15th-finance-commission-report-devolution-formula-accountability-initiative/
  105. https://www.livemint.com/Politics/YeTLbFIBK7aq5k4SqrnUMP/Why-South-India-states-are-objecting-to-Finance-Commissions.html
  106. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/southern-states-oppose-new-yardstick-in-15th-finance-commission-1827809
  107. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/southern-states-biggest-losers-in-new-tax-sharing-formula/articleshow/73861255.cms
  108. https://www.dailyo.in/politics/15th-finance-commission-census-2011-bjp-southern-states-tamil-nadu-kerala-north-south-divide-23127
  109. https://www.shankariasparliament.com/current-affairs/southern-states-concern-on-15th-fcs-decision
  110. https://www.livemint.com/Politics/94TMEgGOlskXwjtElTkZ8I/Arun-Jaitley-says-15th-Finance-Commissions-mandate-has-no-b.html
  111. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/cant-punish-states-for-population-control-finance-commission-chairman/articleshow/65835054.cms
  112. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/economy/economics-of-population-61076
  113. https://scroll.in/article/952357/how-15th-finance-commission-is-trying-to-manage-south-indias-anger-over-tax-division-and-failing
  114. https://marcellus.in/story/long-read-how-declining-population-could-impact-finances-of-southern-states/
  115. https://www.indiaspend.com/explainers/how-declining-population-could-impact-finances-of-southern-states-935460
  116. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/in-centre-vs-south-on-finance-commission-bjps-efforts-to-bridge-the-gap-1829833
  117. https://www.nipfp.org.in/media/medialibrary/2018/04/18042018.pdf
  118. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/thiruvananthapuram/kerala-finance-minister-critiques-centres-financial-discrimination-amid-16th-finance-commissions-visit/articleshow/113945800.cms
  119. https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/west-bengal-government-diverted-rs-330-crore-from-15th-finance-commission-grant-alleges-suvendu-adhikari/articleshow/107466659.cms
  120. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/allegations-of-bias-over-finance-panel-baseless-pm-modi-5135307/
  121. https://www.epw.in/journal/2024/28/perspectives/devolution-states-net-proceeds-india.html
  122. https://cag.gov.in/en/audit-report/details/115296
  123. https://ekamiasacademy.in/cag-report-on-rising-public-debt/
  124. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266731932400034X
  125. https://gidr.ac.in/pdf/WP-185.pdf
  126. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287195806_Why_Tax_Effort_Falls_Short_of_Tax_Capacity_in_Indian_States_A_Stochastic_Frontier_Approach
  127. https://fincomindia.nic.in/asset/doc/commission-reports/14th-FC/studies/32.pdf
  128. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353793742_The_Fourteenth_Finance_Commission_Criteria_for_Horizontal_Devolution_and_the_Fiscal_Performance_of_the_States
  129. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00194662231203460
  130. https://www.levyinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/wp_1056.pdf
  131. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-sub-issues/fiscal-federalism-network/oecd-india-16th-fc-consultation-summary.pdf
  132. https://www.gift.res.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/34.pdf
  133. https://sansad.in/getFile/annex/267/AU3422_UUhVzP.pdf?source=pqars
  134. https://ddnews.gov.in/en/centre-releases-%25E2%2582%25B91-73-lakh-crore-to-states-for-tax-devolution/
  135. https://cag.gov.in/uploads/download_audit_report/2023/Chapter-II-0651c1382c73029.14437044.pdf
  136. https://blog.lukmaanias.com/2025/01/14/q-29-how-have-the-recommendations-of-the-14th-finance-commission-of-india-enabled-the-states-to-improve-their-fiscal-position-gs-ii-polity-upsc-cse-2021-150-words-10-marks/
  137. https://www.mse.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Working-Paper-171.pdf
  138. https://nipfp.org.in/media/documents/WP_411_2024.pdf
  139. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/cag-report-on-2013-14-to-2022-23-fiscal-health-of-states-under-strain-as-public-debt-trebles-in-10-years-10260370/
  140. https://www.indiaspend.com/budget/high-debt-low-returns-how-some-states-get-into-financial-trouble-961076
  141. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/393975255_AN_EMPIRICAL_REVIEW_OF_FISCAL_FEDERALISM_IN_INDIA_ASSESSING_THE_ECONOMIC_IMPACT_OF_FEDERAL_TRANSFERS_STATE_TAX_EFFORTS_AND_NON-TAX_REVENUES_ON_GROWTH_AND_SOCIAL_SECTOR_DEVELOPMENT
  142. https://www.nipfp.org.in/media/medialibrary/2019/03/WP_2019_257.pdf
  143. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274713128_Finance_Commission%27s_Recommendations_and_Restructured_Fiscal_Space
  144. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/growing-size-of-surcharge-cess-swells-govt-kitty-cag/articleshow/123266656.cms
  145. https://factly.in/data-share-of-cesses-surcharges-in-gross-tax-revenue-falls-to-14-5-in-2023-24-down-from-the-high-of-20-2-in-2020-21/
  146. https://a2ztaxcorp.net/centre-eyes-rs-6-lakh-crore-from-cess-and-surcharge-in-fy26-up-10-over-fy25-details-inside/
  147. https://blog.lukmaanias.com/2025/01/04/vertical-fiscal-imbalances-and-their-amelioration/
  148. https://pwonlyias.com/current-affairs/state-fiscal-autonomy/
  149. https://edukemy.com/blog/finance-commission-role-in-addressing-state-fiscal-challenges-upsc-daily-editorial-analysis-03rd-january-2024/
  150. https://m.thewire.in/article/economy/amid-indias-silent-fiscal-crisis-and-fragile-federalism-16th-finance-commission-has-an-uphill-task
  151. https://m.economictimes.com/news/economy/policy/pai-led-research-group-urges-finance-commission-to-mandate-a-cap-on-gst-cess/articleshow/124499127.cms
  152. https://www.drishtiias.com/current-affairs-news-analysis-editorials/news-editorials/2024-01-02/print
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.