What is Education/health cess and surcharge used for?

There’s a clear reason why the central government continues to levy a 4% education and health cess, along with surcharges on incomes above ₹50 LPA. Unlike standard income tax, these components are not shared with state governments—they remain entirely with the Centre. In contrast, around 40% of regular income tax revenue is distributed to states.

This raises an important question. Primary responsibility for education largely lies with state governments. While the Centre manages a limited number of institutions such as Delhi University, Aligarh Muslim University, and JNU, why should additional cess be required instead of funding these through existing tax revenues?

You can see the list of centrally managed universities here:
https://cuet.nta.nic.in/participating-universities/central-universities/

Similarly, premier institutions like IITs and IIMs already charge significant fees and could arguably move toward greater financial self-sufficiency. A large number of graduates from these institutions eventually work abroad, which further complicates the argument for heavy public subsidization.

Healthcare presents a similar picture. Most hospitals and primary healthcare systems, especially in rural and semi-urban areas, are managed by state governments. Central government hospitals are relatively few in number.

Now consider the surcharge. With inflation and income growth, more taxpayers are crossing surcharge thresholds, leading to historically high collections. Yet, there is limited transparency on how this additional revenue is specifically utilized. If these funds are ultimately merged into general revenue, why label them separately as cess or surcharge at all?

This raises a broader concern: are cess and surcharge being used primarily as tools to retain revenue at the central level without sharing it with states?