The Punchhi Commission, formally the Second Commission on Centre-State Relations, was set up by the Ministry of Home Affairs through a notification dated 27 April 2007 under the chairmanship of Justice Madan Mohan Punchhi, a former Chief Justice of India. It was the second major review of Indian federalism after the Sarkaria Commission (1983–88), prompted by two decades of coalition governments, judicial pronouncements on Article 356, and the recommendations of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC, 2002). Its terms of reference required a fresh examination of Union–State relations in light of the post-1991 liberalisation, the rise of regional parties, the impact of internal security challenges, and developments such as the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments empowering local government. The Commission submitted its seven-volume report on 30 March 2010.
The Commission's recommendations cut across legislative, administrative and financial domains. On the contentious office of the Governor, it urged that appointments follow the Sarkaria procedure with consultation of the Chief Minister, that the Governor enjoy a fixed five-year tenure removable only by impeachment-like process, and that the doctrine in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) governing Article 356 be strictly observed, with "localised emergency" provisions under Articles 355 and 356 to avoid dismissing entire State governments for localised disturbances. It recommended a clear convention for the Governor's discretion in appointing a Chief Minister after a hung assembly and in granting assent to or reserving Bills under Article 200. On treaty-making powers under Article 253, it sought greater State consultation where treaties affect the State List. It proposed amending Articles 355 and 356, strengthening the Inter-State Council under Article 263 as a permanent forum, and giving statutory backing to communication mechanisms during national emergencies. It also addressed the role of the All India Services, fiscal devolution, and the need to streamline concurrent-list legislation.
The report drew heavily on antecedent jurisprudence and bodies — the Rajamannar Committee (1971) of Tamil Nadu, the Anandpur Sahib Resolution, the West Bengal Memorandum (1977), and Supreme Court rulings in Bommai and Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006). As of 2026 most of the Punchhi recommendations remain non-binding and unimplemented; successive governments have not enacted the proposed amendments to Articles 355–356 or the fixed gubernatorial tenure, and the appointment and conduct of Governors continues to generate Centre-State friction, keeping the report a live reference point in federalism debates and Supreme Court litigation over assent to State Bills.
For the examination, the Punchhi Commission is a high-yield topic in UPSC GS Paper II (Polity and Governance) and in the polity sections of the State and federal services, frequently paired with the Sarkaria Commission for comparative questions. The typical question angle asks candidates to (a) distinguish Punchhi's recommendations from Sarkaria's, (b) evaluate its proposals on the Governor's role and Article 356 against the Bommai doctrine, or (c) discuss its relevance to contemporary Centre-State tensions. Aspirants should memorise the chairman, the 2007 constitution and 2010 report dates, and the headline recommendations on gubernatorial tenure, localised emergency, and the Inter-State Council.
Example
In 2010, Justice M.M. Punchhi's Commission recommended a fixed five-year tenure for State Governors and removal only through a formal process, a proposal India's Union government had still not enacted as of 2026.
Frequently asked questions
The Sarkaria Commission (1983–88) was the first comprehensive review of Centre-State relations, while the Punchhi Commission (2007–2010) revisited federalism in the post-liberalisation, coalition-era context. Punchhi went further on Governor's fixed tenure, 'localised emergency' under Article 356, and treaty-making consultation.