INDEX

CHAPTER-1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 AIMS AND OBJECTIVE OF REASEARCH
1.2 RATIONAL AND SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY
1.3 HYPOTHESIS
1.4 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

CHAPTERISATION
CHAPTER-2 : MEANING AND CONCEPTUALIZATION OF
FEDERALISM
2.1 Meaning of Federalism
2.2 Definition of Federalism
2.3 Essential Features of Federalism
2.4 Traditional and Modern Approach

CONSTRUCTIONAL PROSPECTIVE
CHAPTER-3 :NATURE OF INDIAN FEDERAL SYSTEM
5.1 Indian Constitution- federal or unitary
5.2 Distinctive features- co operative federalism of India

CHAPTER- 4 INTERNATIONAL PROSPECTIVE

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Pattern of Federal Government- USA, Canada and Australia

CHAPTER-5
Federalism envisaged by the Government of India Act, 1935
CHAPTER-6 : CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS-
MODIFICATION OF FEDERAL PRINCIPLE IN INDIAN
CONSTITUTION
6.1 Parliament powers to form New States and Alter boundaries of
existing States(Art.2&3)
6.2 Parliament's power to make law on State matters
6.3 Administrative relations between Union and States
6.4 Distribution of Legislative Power between the Union and the States
(Art.246)
6.5 residuary powers of Legislation (Art.248)
6.6 Emergency provisions - Provision on federalism, Effect of Emergency
power.

CHAPTER-7
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION

CHAPTER-8 RECENT DEVELOPMENT OF FEDERALISM IN

INDIA
CHAPTER-9
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
III. BIBLIOGRAPHY

LIST OF SOURCES
List of books referred
List of website referred
List of cases referred
 CHAPTER-1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF RESEARCH

To study in detail the meaning of federalism and to describe the basic

principle of Federalism.

To examine the character of Indian federal system and whether or not the

Indian Constitution can be described as a Federal Constitution.

To give a distinctive study of other federal countries with India.

To critically examine the Indian Federal System.

1.2 RATIONAL AND SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY

There has been a lot of insoluble controversy as to the question whether Indian

Constitution is federal or unitary. Some characterized it as federal, while other treated it

as unitary. To solve this controversy it is necessary to examine the essential

characteristics of a federal constitution. Indian Constitution has chosen to adopt federal

system but with a capacity to work as unitary when so required. As the new trend in all

federations is to have some sort of co-operative federalism with somewhat dominating

powers to the centre, the framers of the Indian Constitution have also sought to provide

for co-operative federalism. Cooperative federalism is a modern approach where the

powers are distributed between National government and State government.

1.3 HYPOTHESIS

Constitution of India is neither purely federal nor purely unitary but a combination of

both. According to the need and demands of circumstances and to meet the aspiration

of the people, there are some provisions in the Indian Constitution which deviates

from truly federal character. It is like a chameleon which can change colour according

to environment. Much will depend upon the role of the President, regional and

national parties, the strength of the political party in power at the Centre and its

backing in States.

The constitution of India contains various provisions for inter-state coordination and

cooperation. Cooperation and coordination between the Union and States have been

considered necessary for the development of the country. The Constitution of India,

thus, provides for Cooperative Federalism.

1.4 STATEMENT OF PROBLEMS

What are the basic principles of Federalism and to what extent do they

incorporated into the Indian Constitution?

Whether the Constitution of India is truly federal in character or more unitary?

Whether the federal system in India is same as in U.S.A, Canada and Australia?

Whether the condition of the present Indian Constitution can be described as

Cooperative Federalism?
1.5 SCOPE OF WORK

The Indian Constitution cannot be called "federal" or "unitary" in the ideal sense of

the terms. The British parliament has set up a federal system in India by the

Government of India Act, 1935.

Article 1(1) of the Constitution of India says that, "India that is Bharat, shall be a

Union of States." The Constitution, thus postulated India as a Union of (States and

consequently, the existence of federal structure of governance for this Union of States

becomes a basic structure of the Union of India.

The Constitution makes a distribution of powers between the Union and the States, the

jurisdiction of each being demarcated by the Union, State and Concurrent lists. In case

of a conflict between the two legislatures over a matter in the Concurrent list the will

of the Parliament prevails. The supremacy of the Constitution- the hallmark of a

federation- is an important feature of the Indian polity. Neither the Central

government nor the State Governments can override or contravene the provisions of

the Constitution. Another prerequisite of a federation, namely, an independent

judiciary - an interpreter and guardian of the

Constitution - is also present in the Indian Federation. The Supreme Court can declare

any law passed by the Union Parliament or a State legislature ultra vires if it

contravenes any of the provisions of the Constitution.

The Constitution of India contains various provisions for inter- state coordination and

cooperation. Thus, it provides for Cooperative Federalism.

1.6 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY-

Methodology can be: "the analysis of the principles of methods, rules and postulates

employed by a discipline "the systematic study of the methods that are, can be, or

have been applied within a discipline", "a particular procedure or set of procedures"..

This research is based on the Doctrinal research. Doctrinal research means a research

that has been carried out of legal proposition or propositions by way of analysing the

existing statutory provisions and cases by applying the reasoning power.

According to SN Jain, doctrinal research involves analysis of case law, arranging,

ordering and systematizing legal propositions and study of legal institution through

legal reasoning and rational deduction.

 CHAPTER-2

CHAPTERISATION

2.1 MEANING OF FEDERALISM

Federalism is a political concept in which a group of members are bound together by

covenant with a governing representative head. The term "federalism" is also used to

describe a system of the government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided

between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states or

provinces). Federalism is a system in which the power to govern is shared between

national and provincial/state governments, creating what is often called a federation.

Proponents are often called federalists.

In Canada, federalism typically implies opposition to sovereignty's movements. In the

United States, advocates of a very small federal government and stronger state

governments are those that generally favor confederation, often related to early "anti-

federalists" and later the Confederacy in the United States.

Argentina, Australia, Brazill, India and Malaysia among others, are also federal

countries. Modem Constitution and Government are classified into Unitary and

federal on the basis of concentration or distribution of powers and the nature of the

relationship between the central and the regional authorities. In a Unitary constitution,

supreme power belongs to the Central Governments and there is no constitutional

division of power between the national and regional government.

The term 'Federal' is derived from the Latin word 'Foedus' this means treaty or

agreement. In case of federal constitution, there is a treaty or agreement namely, a

written constitution, which defines and determines the powers of the two sets of

government, national and regional. A federal government is a dual government.1

A citizen of federal country thus becomes subject to the decree of two governments-

Central and the regional. The Regional Government is called the State Government as

in U.S.A, Australia or India, or Provincial Governments in Canada.

Definitions:

Following are some of the definitions which help to understand and appreciate the

meaning and nature of federalism.

1. Prof. K. C. Wheare

According to him, "Federal Principle is the method of dividing powers so that

the general and regional governments are each, within a sphere, coordinate

and independent." Existence of coordinate authorities' independent to each

other is the gist of the federal principle.

2. Montesquieu

According to him, "A Constitution by which several similar States agree to

become members of a large one is a federal government."

3. Dicey

According to him, "A federal State is a political contrivance intended to

reconcile national unity with the maintenance of State rights."

Thus in a federal Constitution both the Central and regional governments are co-

ordinate and independent in their spheres and not subordinate to one another.
 The Constitution of U.S.A. which establishes dual form of government, is a

classic example of federalism.

2.2 TRADITIONAL AND MODERN APPROACH

Federalism is a comparatively modern concept. However, there is no agreed definition

of a federal state. Federalism originates from ancient Greece. Broadly speaking, there

are two approaches to understand the federal system which are as follows:-

1. Traditional approach

Traditional approach place main emphasis on the existence of two independent and

coordinate authorities and Joint plenary powers within the jurisdiction set apart by the

Constitution. According to Prof. K.C. Wheare, the federal principle is the method of

dividing powers so that the general and the regional government are each within a

sphere co-ordinate and independent. On this basis Prof. Wheare finds that there are

only four federations in the world i.e. U.S.A, Canada, Australia and Switzerland. He

puts other federations (e.g. India) in the category of quasi federations. But this

traditional or classic approach has some limitations, it ignores compulsions of socio-

economic forces operating in the modern era which have not left unmolded even the

traditional federations of Prof. Wheare. Thus on strict application of the traditional

tests it is not possible to find a single example of a true federation in the world.

2. Modern approach

The insistence of modern approach on independence in mutual relationship of the

States and the National Government are too idealistic to be followed in the presence

age of interdependence. This idea of interdependence and cooperation finds concrete

expression in the formulation of concurrent powers, an area over which both the

national and State governments operate. The modern Jurists instead of

interdependence states talk of Cooperative federalism wherein the relationship

between two sets of Governments is that of interdependence. Some writers have

suggested federation as pure creature of expediency whereby the powers are so

distributes between the national and state governments that there is scope for constant

adjustment of relations between the two sets of government according to the

requirement of both time and place. Dicey has defined a federal state, as "a political

contrivance intended to reconcile national unity with maintenance of state rights.

2.3 ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF FEDERALISM Essential features of

Federalism

A Constitution will be a Federal Constitution, if it possesses the following

characteristics:-

a. Duality of Government:

While in a unitary state there is only one government i.e. National Government or

Central Government. But in a federal state, there are two governments the federal

or the central governments and the government of each constituent's state. This

features clearly differentiates between federation and confederation

b. Distribution of powers:

The distribution of powers between the centre and the states is the most

important characteristics, rather the core of any federal system. In reality, the

whole federal system revolves around this basic core of distribution of powers.

A federal constitution thus envisages a demarcation or division of

governmental functions and powers between the centre and the regions.
c. Supremacy of the Constitution:

Supremacy of the Constitution is an essential feature of the federal

constitution. The Constitution of USA is a federal Constitution. Consequently,

there is supremacy of Constitution in USA. Any act of any organ of the

government which is against the

Constitution is invalid and of no force. The Legislature, Executive or Judiciary

cannot isolate the Constitution.

The Supremacy of the Constitution is necessary for the establishment and

maintenance of Federal Constitution and Federal Government. No person or

governmental authority is above the Constitution.

d. Written and Rigid Constitution:

Actually it is not necessary for a federal Constitution to be written but in

practice it is always found written, because due to distribution of powers

between the central government and the State governments, an unwritten

federal constitution will create confusion and conflict. Indian Constitution is a

written Constitution.

d. Authority of Courts:

In a federal state, the legal supremacy of the constitution is essential to the

existence of a federal system and to ensure this it is necessary to maintain the

authority of courts, which must have final power to interpret the Constitution

and guard the entrenched provision of the Constitution.

 CHAPTER-3

PATTERN OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT- U.S.A, CANADA AND

AUSTRALIA

The term federalism is also used to describe a system of the government in which

sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and

constituent political units (like states or provinces). Federalism is the system in which

the power to govern is shared between the national & state governments, creating

what is often called a federation.

U.S.A

In the United States, federalism is the system of government in which power is

divided between a central government and the government of each state. Before the

U.S. Constitution was written, each American state was essentially sovereign. The

U.S. Constitution created a federal government with sufficient powers to both

represents and unite the states, but did not supplant state governments. This federal

arrangement, by which the central federal government exercises delegated power over

some issues and the state governments, exercise power over other issues, is one of the

basic characteristics of the U.S. Constitution that checks governmental power.

The U.S. Constitution establishes a government based on "federalism," or the sharing

of power between the national, and state (and local) governments. Our power-sharing

form of government is the opposite of "centralized" governments, such as those in

England and France, under which national government maintains total power.
While each of the 50 states has its own constitution, all provisions of state constitutions

must comply with the U.S. Constitution. For example, a state constitution cannot deny

accused criminals the right to a trial by jury, as assured by the U.S. Constitution's 6th

Amendment. Under the U.S. Constitution, both the national and state governments are

granted certain exclusive powers and share other powers.

The U.S.A Constitution has been regarded as the 'epitome' of the classic federalism.

America started on its Federal carrier with a weak-centre & emphasis on State's

rights. The reason was that the U.S constitution came into being as a result of a

voluntary compact among the preexisting states which conceded rather limited-

powers to the Centre. A similar process occurred in Australia.

Also, the US- constitution was the product of the "laissez-Faire" era which signified

'minimum-government' and 'maximum-private' enterprises.

In course of time, however things have changed. The powers of the centre have

expanded since 1787 and correspondingly the powers of the states have shrunk.

This has been achieved without any explicit-amendment of the constitution but

through ingenious legislative device and also through Judicial Activism.

Now in present context, the states in the U.S.A are co-ordinate with the central

government, as there definitely-weaker vis-a-vis the centre. The process has been

aided by such factors as tense international situations, wars, vat economic and

technological-developments, replacement of laissez faire by the social-welfare etc.

CANADA

The Canadian-constitution, definitely told an accent on the centre. In course of time,

however the privy-council, by its process of interpretation weakened the centre and

raises the provinces. This was the result of assertion of bilinguism and biculturism by

Quebec (a French majority state). The central-power to veto the provincial-legislation

has also come to be used sparingly as a result of growth of conventions.

On the whole, therefore, the provinces in Canada have greater freedom of action than

the other units in other federations and this has at times been inconvenient and

embarrassing to the centre, primarily in the area of foreign -relations and economic-

matters.

The difficulty of any treatment of federalism is that there is no agreed definition of a

federal state. The other difficulty is that it is habitual with scholars on the subject to start

with the model of the United States, the oldest (1787) of all federal constitution in the

world, and to exclude any system that does not conform to that model from the

nomenclature of federation. But numerous countries in the world have, since 1787,

adopted Constitutions having federal features and, if the strict historical standard of the

United States applied to all these later Constitutions from the federal class, for according

to the traditional classification followed by political scientists, Constitutions are either

unitary or federal. If therefore, a Constitution partakes of some features of both types, the

only alternative is to analyses those features and to ascertain whether it is basically

unitary or federal, although it may have subsidiary variations. A liberal attitude towards

the question of federalism is, therefore, inevitable particularly in view of the fact that

recent experiments in the world of Constitution- making are departing

more and more from pure type of either unitary or federal system. The Question

whether a state is unitary or federal is one of degrees and the answer will depend upon

"how many federal features it possessed".3

Canada is a federation with two distinct jurisdictions of political authority: the

countrywide federal government and ten regionally-based provincial governments. The

federal government includes the Parliament of Canada and the prime minister, while the

provincial governments include each province's legislative assembly and premier. The

two levels are linked together by the Canadian Crown, from which all derive their

sovereignty and authority, as well as a court system that rules of jurisdiction between the

levels. The federal parliament and the legislative assemblies of the provinces are each

independent of one another with respect to their areas of legislative authority. A few

subjects are shared, such as agriculture and immigration, but most are either entirely

within federal jurisdiction, such as foreign affairs and telecommunications, or entirely

within provincial jurisdiction, such as education and healthcare.

The three territories are creations of the Federal Parliament and exercise delegated

power and not sovereign power. The United Kingdom did not follow this model when

Confederation was realized, making Canada different from its mother country (and

similar to its southern neighbor, the United States) in this respect. The governments of

cities and regions within provinces are creations of the provincial governments. The

federal nature of Canadian Constitution was a reaction to the colonial diversities in the

Maritimes and the Province of Canada, in particular the strong distinction between the

French-speaking inhabitants of Lower Canada (Quebec) and the English-speaking

inhabitants in Upper Canada (Ontario) and the Maritimes. Federalism was considered
essential to the co-existence of the French and English communities. John A.

Macdonald, who became the first Prime Minister of Canada, had at first opposed a

federalist system of government, favoring a unitary system of government.

Macdonald later supported the federalist system after seeing the carnage of the

American Civil War. He sought to avoid the same violent conflicts by maintaining a

fusion of powers rather than a separation of powers south of the border.

The division of powers between the federal and provincial governments was initially

outlined in the British North America Act, 1867 (now the Constitution Act, 1867),

which, with amendments (in the British North America Acts and the Constitution Act,

1982), form the Constitution of Canada. Federalism is one of the three pillars of the

constitutional order, along with responsible government and the Canadian Charter of

Rights and Freedoms.

AUSTRALIA

Whilst the presidential system of government and a comprehensive Bill of Rights in

Australia were rejected, some of the federal features of the American system were

used. These features include a high degree of autonomy for the government

institutions of the federation and the states, a division of power between these

organizations, and a judicial authority to determine whether either level of

government had exceeded its powers.

Australia successfully adapted the American concept of state and federal governments

possessing separate sovereignty within the framework of a constitutional monarchy

by establishing the position of state governor to be appointed by the Sovereign on the

advice of the relevant state premier, the Commonwealth Government playing no role

in these appointments. This gives each state a direct link with the Crown that

completely bypasses Canberra, and can be contrasted with the Canadian system where

provincial lieutenant- governors, appointed by the Governor General on the advice of

the federal Prime Minister, were once seen as representatives of the Canadian federal

government and not the Sovereign directly.

Other aspects of the Constitution of Australia are associated with the federal principle.

Original states have equal representation in the senate. Although this is not an

essential element of federation, it reflects the view that states (colonies) should be

equal in status. Since federation the balance of power between levels of government

has shifted from the founding fathers vision. The shift has transferred power from

State governments to the Commonwealth government. Phases in the development of

Australian federalism can be identified.

The first phase may be described as co-ordinate federalism. In co-ordinate federalism

the Commonwealth and the States were both financially and politically independent

within their own spheres of responsibility.

A factor in the expansion of Commonwealth powers was the growth of defence

expenditures which culminated in Australia's involvement in World War I. After the

war. Conservative Commonwealth governments attempted to return to a system of co-

ordinate federalism. However, a system of co-operative federalism developed in the

1920s and 1930s in response to both internal and external pressures. Elements of

cooperative federalism included: the establishment of the Australian Loan Council in

response to intergovernmental competition in the loan markets; the co-ordination of

economic management and budgetary policies during the Great Depression; and the

establishment of joint consultative bodies, usually in the form of ministerial councils. 4

 CHAPTER-4

FEDERALISM ENVISAGED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE

INDIA ACT, 1935

In India, the historical-process to create the federal-system was different. For long,

before 1935, British India has been administered on a unitary basis. There existed a

unitary-system. But after the end of British-colonies, the unitary system was replaced

by a federal-system. The present federal-system was built on the foundation of the

1935 system.

The past history of India establishes that in the absence of a strong Central-

Government, the country soon disintegrates. This belief was strengthened by the

recent-portion of the country. Therefore adequate precautions have to be taken against

any such future contingency by making the centre strong in Indian-Federalism.

Owing to its vastness of territory and variety of people, India could not be governed

efficiently as a unitary-state and so a unitary constitution was out of question.

India, such a large country with diverse-cultures, religions, languages, tribal and

ethnic differences and even marginal racial variations, with historical, geographical

and political- divergences, cannot bear true faith with democracy and collective

freedom without authentic Federal Features.

By the act of 1935, the British Parliament set up a federal system in the same manner as it

had done in the case of Canada, by creating autonomous units and combining them into a

federation by one and the same Act. All powers hitherto exercised in India were
resumed by the crown and redistributed between the federations and the Provinces by

a direct grant. Under this system, the provinces derived their authority directly from

the Crown and exercised Legislative and executive powers, broadly free from central

control, within a define sphere. Nevertheless, the Centre regained control through the

Governor's special responsibilities and his obligation to exercise his individual

judgement and discretion in certain matters, and the power of the Centre to give

direction to the Provinces.

The peculiarity of thus converting a unitary system into a federal one can be best

explained in the words of the Joint parliamentary Committee on Indian Reforms: "Of

course in thus converting a unitary state into a federation we should be taking a step

for which there is no exact historical precedent. Federation have commonly resulted

from an agreement between independent or, at least, autonomous Governments,

surrendering a defined part of their sovereignty or autonomy to a new Central

organism. At the present moment the British Indian Provinces are not even

autonomous for they are subject to both administrative and legislative control of the

Government and such authority as they exercise has been in the main devolved upon

them under a statutory rule-making power by the Governor- General in council. We

are faced with the necessity of creating autonomous units and combining them into a

federation by one and the same act."

It is well worth remembering the peculiarity of the origin of the federal system in India.

Neither before nor under the Act of 1935, were the Provinces in any sense 'Sovereign'

States like the States of American Union. The Constitution, too, has been framed by the

people of India assembled in the Constituent Assembly, and the Union of India cannot
be said to be the result of any compact or agreement between the autonomous States. So

far as the Provinces are concerned, the progress had been from a unitary to a federal

organization, but even then, this has happened not because the Provinces desired to

become autonomous units under a federal union, as in Canada. The Provinces, as just

seen, had been artificially made autonomous, within a defined sphere, by the Government

of India Act, 1935. What the makers of the Constitution did was to associate the Indian

States with these autonomous Provinces into a federal Union, which the Indian States had

refused to accede to, in 1935. Some amount of homogeneity of the federating units is a

condition for their desire to form a federal union. But in India, the position has been

different. From the earliest time, the Indian States had a separate political entity, and there

was little that was common between them and the Provinces which constituted the rest of

India. Even under the Federal scheme of 1935 the Provinces and the India States were

treated differently; the accession of the Indian States to the system was voluntary while it

was compulsory for the provinces, and the powers exercisable by the Federation over the

Indian States were also to be defined by the Instruments of Accession. It is because it was

optional with the Rulers of the Indian States that they refused to join the federal system of

1935. They lacked 'the federal sentiments' (Dicey), that is, the desire to form a federal

Union with the rest of India. But, as already pointed out, the political situation changed

with the lapse of paramountcy of the British Crown as a result of which most the Indian

States acceded to the Dominion of India on the eve of the Independence of India.

The credit of the makers of the Constitution, therefore, lies not so much in bringing the

Indian States under the federal system but in placing them, as much as possible, on the

same footing as the other units of the federation, under the same Constitution. In short,
the survivors of the Old Indian States were, with the minor exceptions, placed under

the same political system of the old provinces. The Integration of the Units of the two

Categories has eventually been completed by eliminating the separate entities of

States in Part A and Part B and replacing them by one Category of States, by the

Constitution (7th Amendment) Act, 1956.

 CHAPTER-5

NATURE OF INDIAN FEDERAL SYSTEM

There is difference of opinion among the constitutional jurists about the nature of the

Indian constitution. One view is that it is a quasi federal Constitution and has more

Unitary features than federal features.

Article 1(1) of our Constitutions says " India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States."

While submitting the Draft Constitution, Dr. Ambedkar, the Chairman of the Drafting

Committee, stated that "although its Constitution may be federal in structure", the

Committee had used the term "Union" because of certain advantages, these

advantages, he explained in the Constituent Assembly, were to indicate two things,

viz., (a) that the Indian federation is not the result of an agreement by an Units, and

(b) that the component units have no freedom to secede from its.

The word "Union" does not indicate any particular type of federation, in as much as it

is used also in the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States- the model of

federation; in the Preamble of the British North America Act (which according to

Lord Haldane, did not create a true federation at all); in the Preamble to the Union of

South Africa Act. 1909, which patently set up a unitary Constitution; and even in the

Constitution of U.S.S.R. (1997), which formally acknowledges a right of succession [

Art. 72] to each Republic, i.e, unit of the Union. We have, therefore, to examine the

provisions of the Constitution itself, apart from the label given to it by its draftsman,

to determine whether it presides a federal system as claimed by Dr. Ambedkar,

particularly in view of the criticisms leveled against its federal claim by some foreign

scholars.
The difficulty in any treatment of federalism is that there is no agreed definition of a

federal State. The other difficulty is that it is habitual with the scholars on the subject

to start with the model of the United States, the oldest (1787) of all federal

Constitution in the world, and to exclude any system that conform to that model from

the nomenclature of that federation. But numerous countries in the world have, since

1787, adopted Constitutions having federal features and, if the strict historical

standard of the United States be applied to all these later Constitutions, few will stand

the test of Federalism save perhaps Switzerland and Australia. Nothings is, however,

gained by excluding so may recent Constitutions from the federal class, for, according

to the traditional classification followed by political scientists, Constitutions are either

unitary or federal. If therefore, a Constitution partakes some features of both types, the

only alternative is to analyse those features and to ascertain whether it is basically

unitary or federal, although it may have subsidiary variations. A liberal attitude

towards the questions of federalism is, therefore, inevitable particularly in view of the

fact that recent experiment in the world of Constitution making are departing more

and more from the pure type of either unitary or a federal system. The question

whether a State is federal or unitary is one of degrees and the answer will depend

upon how many features it possesses.

5.1 INDIAN CONSTITUTION- FEDERAL OR UNITARY

Federal features:

To solve the controversy as the question whether Indian Constitution is federal or

unitary, we have to examine the essential characteristics of a federal Constitution with

the Indian Constitution. Some of the federal features of the Indian Constitution can be

summarized as follows:
1. Existence of Dual Government- There can be no federation unless there are

two sets of governments - one at the centre and the other at regional level. In

India, we have the Government of the Union of India at the Centre and

Governments of various States as regional units of federation. To this extent

Indian Constitution possesses federal element.

2. Distribution of powers- Mere existence of central and regional governments

does not make a constitution federal because this can be possible even in a

unitary government where a large country is divided in several regional units

for the sake of administrative convenience. For a federation, distribution of

powers between central government and regional units is essential and this

distribution should be such as to ensure substantial independence to central as

well as regional governments. In Indian Constitution all legislative powers are

enumerated in three Lists of the Seventh Schedule. In respect of matters

enumerated the list I, Union has exclusive power to legislate and in respect of

matters enumerated in List II, the States have exclusive legislative power. List

III is concurrent list. In respect of matters enumerated in this list, both Union

and States have power to legislate, The Union and States have executive

powers also on matters in respect of which they have power to legislate. Thus,

the Constitution provides for distribution of powers ensuring substantial

independence to governments of both levels.

3. Written constitution- This is strictly not necessary to constitute a federation

but it is a practical necessity that distribution of powers has to be recorded. We

have one of the largest written constitutions of the world.

4. Supremacy of the Constitution- Distribution of powers will be of no use if the

constitution is not treated as supreme and governments are allowed to violate it.

In India, any legislative or executive action of Union or State government will be

of no force if it is against the provisions of the Constitution. Constitution is

supreme. In Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v Union of India, the

Supreme Court has held that in India, Constitution not the Parliament, is supreme

Constitution is fundamental and higher law and being so it is the touchstone of

limits of powers of various organs of the State.

5. Independent arbiter of powers- There must be some independent authority

to interpret the constitution and to resolve the disputes between central and

regional governments The authority need not necessarily be the court, but

generally courts are entrusted with this job. Under the Indian Constitution

power to interpret the Constitution rests with the courts and for ensuring

independence of courts, the judges have been given substantial protection in

respect of their salaries and tenure of service. The judges -of the Supreme

Court and the High Court’s cannot be removed from service except in

accordance with the provisional of Article 124 (4), nor can their salaries or

emoluments be varied to their disadvantage.

6. Rigid process of amendment- For a federation it is necessary that power to

amend the constitution should not be given exclusively to centre or regional

units. Both must participate in the process of amendment, Under Article 368,

certain matters, which can affect federal structure, cannot be amended by

Parliament alone even by special majority. At least half of the States must

also ratify.
Thus, all the essential elements of federal constitution are in principle

embodied in our constitution. Besides these, the Upper House to the centre is

elected by State Legislatures and in Presidential elections, members of both

Houses of Parliament as well as of State Assemblies take part. In spite of all

this our constitution has been branded as quasi-federal by Dr K C Wheare.

Some have called it as unitary with certain federal features Granville Austin

in his book "The Indian Constitution — Cornerstone of a Nation" concluded

that our system, if it could be called federal, could be described as "Co-

operative federalism", which implies system with three characteristics:

(i) administrative co-operation between central and regional governments,

(ii) partial dependence of the regional governments upon payments from

the central government and,

(iii) the use of conditional grants by central governments for promotion of

developments in matters constitutionally assigned to regions.

The direct question whether our Constitution is federal or unitary was

not seriously considered by the Supreme Court except in State of West

Bengal v. Union of India1, in which it held by majority that Indian

Constitution is not federal. But the issue involved in the case was

narrow one, that is, whether Union of India could acquire landed

property belonging to state or states could claim immunity because of

federal nature of the, Constitution. However, in In re Under Article

143, the Supreme Court recognizes that the Indian Constitution is a

federal Constitution.
 In Keshavananda v. State of Kerala , some of the Judges of the

Supreme Court regarded federal character of the Indian Constitution

as, an essential or the basic feature of the Indian Constitution. On the

other hand, Beg CJ, in State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, observed

that a conspectus of the provisions of our constitution will indicate

that,' whatever- appearances of a federal structure our Constitution

may have, its operations are certainly judged both by the contents of

powers which a number of provisions carry with them and the use that

has been made of them, more unitary than federal In Satpal v. State of

Punjab, the Supreme court again held that ours is a Constitution where

there is a combination of federal structure with unitary features.

In Pradeep Jain v. Union of India", also the Supreme Court held that

India is not a Federal State in the traditional sense of that term. It is

not a compact of sovereign States which have come together to form a

federation by ceding a part of their sovereignty to the federal-State. It

has undoubtly certain federal features but is still not a federal State. It

has only one citizenship, that is, citizenship of India and a unified

legal system which extend throughout the country

Unitary features :

The following unitary features are relied upon by those who challenge the federal

character of the Indian Constitution:-

1. Process of Formation- A very weak argument is based on the process of

formation of federation. It is said that process of formation of the Indian

 Constitution has been just the reverse. Before the present Constitution was

framed, India was governed by the Britishers as Unitary State. In State of

West Bengal v. Union of India2 and Pradeep Jain v. Union of India , this

aspect was given undue emphasis. The process of formation does not affect

the federal nature. There are many federations which came into existence not

as a result of a compact between existing states but as a result of division of

existing State. Between Indian States and former provinces, there has been

integration but some bigger Provinces were divide to form a new State.

2. No separate State Constitutions, single Citizenship- Equally weak

arguments are made on the basis of certain non-essential characteristics which

are present in some important federal Constitutions. For instance, in many

federations 3State have their separate constitutions and citizenship. In Pradeep

Jain v Union of India'5, this aspect was also emphasized. In our country

provisions regarding organisation of government in States are incorporated in

the Indian Constitution itself. States do not have separate constitutions as there

is no provision for dual citizenship, but these matters are incidents of history

of a particular federation and are not essential for co-ordinate functioning of

both the tiers of the government- Centre and States.

3. Union Control over State Executive.—

i. Appointment of Governors- The executive head of the state, i e, Governor is

appointed by the President and holds office during his pleasure. This by itself

does not affect federal system very much, because in almost all matter, he has

to act on the advice of his ministers but his position is liable to be misused by

the Central Government under certain circumstances. In fact, it

2 AIR 1963 SC 1241

3
CONSTITUTION OF USA, SWITZERLAND AND AUSTRALIA
 has been used on several occasions to dismiss the Ministry of an

opposition party in States or to appoint a Chief Minister who has not

majority support in the Legislative Assembly as was done by the Governor

of Jharkhand recently.

ii. Execution of Union laws by State Executive.- The division of executive

powers between the Union and the States is on the basis of division of

Legislative powers. This is provided in Articles 73 (1) and 162, but the

division is not like watertight compartments. The laws made by the Union

on concurrent matters will be primarily administered by States unless

Parliament directs otherwise. The executive powers of the State shall, be

subject to and limited by executive powers of the Union.

iii. Delegation of power by the Union- Even in respect of matters in the

Union list, Union may delegate its functions to States. Similarly, under

Article 258A, the Governor of a State may entrust executive functions of

State to Union or its officers.

iv. Executive Direction - Article 256 says that the executive power of a state

shall be so exercised as to ensure compliance with the laws made by

Parliament and that executive power of the Union may extend to giving of

directions to the states. Article 257 also provides for executive directions by

the Centre as to the manner in which the state executive power is to be

exercised so that exercise of executive power of States should not impede or

prejudice the exercise of the executive power of the Union. If the State fails to

carry out directions, the penalty is provided in Article 365. The President may

declare that the government of the State cannot be carried on in

 accordance with the provisions of the constitution and enforce provisions of

Article 356.

4. Control over Legislative Powers of State-

(i) Legislation by Parliament on State Matters under Articles 249 and

252- Under Article 249, Parliament can legislate on any matter enumerated

in the State list if Council of States passes a resolution by 2/3d majority of

members present and voting that it is in the national interest. Under Article

252, if two or more States pass resolutions that a particular matter

enumerated in State List be regulated by Parliament, then Parliament shall

be competent. In pass legislation and such legislation shall be in force in

those states or in any other State which adopts it. In fact, these provisions

do not affect federal character of the Indian Union. Legislation under

Article 252 is expressly authorized by states themselves and legislation

under Article 249 is also indirectly with the consent of the States, because

Council of States consists of the representatives, of states. Only twelve

members are nominated by the President and some members represent

Union territories. Moreover, such legislation is only a temporary measure.

(ii) Implementation of Treaties, Agreements and Conventions- For

implementing any treaty, agreement or convention with any foreign country

or decision of an international conference. Article 253 authorizes Parliament

to make Laws for the whole or part of the country. This provision is

necessary. It is the duty of the Union to maintain relations with the foreign

States. If implementation is left at the mercy of the States, many

 international commitments would remain unimplemented or would be

delayed. Actually this happened in Canada during nineteen thirties.

(iii)Inconsistency of Union and State laws- Article 254 provides that if any law

made by State Legislature is repugnant to any provision of law made by

Parliament within its authority or to any provision of existing law with respect

to matters in Concurrent List, then the Parliamentary law or the existing law,

as the case may be, will prevail, It is immaterial whether Parliamentary law is

enacted before or after the enactment of the State law.'

(iv) Presidential assent to State legislation- Article 200 empowers the

Governor to reserve a Bill for consideration of the President who may

either give his assent or withhold it and require the Governor to send it

back to the Legislature with message. When again passed by the

Legislature, it is again sent for the consideration of the President. This

provision is in most of the cases a mere formality. In the case of Kerala

Education Bill, however, the Bill was returned for suitable amendments

but before sending back, opinion of the Supreme Court was obtained.

5. The Judiciary-

(i) Unified Judicial system- United States of America, Australia and some

other federations have double judicial system- federal courts and state

courts, but our constitution provides for unified judicial system like that of

Canada.

(ii) Appointment of Judges- Appointments of judges of the High Courts and the

Supreme Court are made by the President, who is also the executive head of

the Union Government Power of appointment, no doubt, carries some

influence with it but the constitution makers took sufficient precautions.

 Once a Supreme Court or High Court Judge is appointed, he cannot be

removed except by the special procedure mentioned in Article 124(4), Nor

can his salaries or privileges be altered to his disadvantages. In Supreme

Court

Advocates on Record Association v Union of India,4 the Supreme Court

has held that no appointment of Judges of High Court or Supreme Court

can be made by the President except in conformity with the final opinion

.of the Chief Justice of India. This view has been affirmed by the Court in

Special Reference No. 7 of 19985.

6. Financial Control- By system of grants-in-aid, Centre can exercise a lot of

control over State activities. But this is not peculiar in India. This system is now

followed in almost all federations and is essential for cooperative federalism.

7. Emergency Provisions - When the proclamation of emergency is in operation,

Article 250 gives Parliament power to legislate in respect of matters allotted to

State Legislatures. The executive power of the Union extends to giving of

directions as to how the executive power of the State is to be exercised, and the

President may modify financial arrangements between Union and States. In cases

of failure of constitutional machinery in a State, Article 356 authorises the Centre

to assume all powers of the State Government. Similarly, in times of financial

emergency, Article 360 authorises Centre to give directions in financial matters,

and all money and financial Bills of the State may be required to be reserved for

consideration of the President. These emergency provisions give almost complete

control to the Centre over States but this is a temporary phase for abnormal

situations. As observed by Dwivedi J. in Keshavananda v.

4 (1993) 4 SCC 441.

5
AIR 1999 SCI
 State of Kerala, 6when the proclamation of emergency is in force, the cardinal

principle of federation is merely in eclipse In other federations also in times of

war and emergencies wider powers are conceded to the centre to cope with the

situation.

8. Power of reorganization- Under Article 3, Parliament may by law form a

new State, increase of diminish the area of any State ad later its name and

boundaries. This is a very sweeping power given to the central legislative

organ. The very existence and identity of a State can be vanished by

Parliament unilaterally. Though certain checks on the exercise of this power

are given in the provision, yet if the Centre is adamant the States cannot

prevent the measure.

It is true that India was never intended to be a federation in the strict sense of

the term The framers were aware of the hardships that were faced by some

important federations during wars and even in peace time in carrying out

nationwide economic reforms or in implementing international agreements or

in checking centrifugal forces threatening the unity of the nation.

The Constituent Assembly purposely Substituted the word "union" in place of

"federation" in Article I of the Constitution to make it clear that federation was

not the result of an agreement by States as such no State has right to secede from

it, that the country is one integral whole and its people, single people living under

a single imperium derived from a single source. While adopting federal system

generally, the framers were keen to preserve the unity of the country and therefore

they included certain provisions, which are opposed to federal principle, to meet

certain exigencies. It is capable of functioning as a federation

6 AIR 1973 SC 1461,2003

 as well as unitary system according to circumstances. In the Constituent

Assembly, Dr.Ambedkar remarked :

"All federal systems including American are placed in a tight mould of

federalism. No matter what the circumstances, it cannot change its form and

shape. It can never be unitary. On the other hand, the draft constitution (of

India) can be both unitary as well as federal according to the requirements of

time and circumstances.

5.2 DISTINCTIVE FEATURES - INDIA AND U.S.A.

The Constitutional system of India is basically federal, but of course, with striking

Unitary features.

1. There are many distinctive features of the Indian federal system. In United

States, there is dual citizenship. An American is a citizen of the United States

and also of the State in which he lives. In India, there is a dual polity but

single citizenship. To quote, " there is only one citizenship for the whole of

India. It is the Indian Citizenship. There is no State citizenship. Every Indian

has the same rights of citizenship, no matter in what State he resides".

2. Every State in the United States has the right to make or amend its own

Constitution. The Federal Government has not the power to change the

Constitution of any State. In India, no State has the power to amend its own

Constitution although the Federal Government has the power to amend the

State Constitution under certain circumstances. To quote, " the Constitution of

Union and of the States is single frame from which neither can get out and

within which they must work".

3. The residuary powers in India are given to the Union Government and the

Indian Parliament can make laws with regard to them. In United States, the

residuary powers are with the States.

4. Rigidity and legalism are considered to be the two evils of a federal polity. A

federal Constitution has to be a written Constitution, which is usually rigid.

Moreover, the people in a federal polity always talk in terms of legality or

illegality of a measure, irrespective of its merits. However, the Indian

Constitution have adopted certain methods to avoid the evils of rigidity and

legalism. It has provided a long list of Concurrent subjects. A large number of

provisions have been made which are to remain in force until Parliament

provides otherwise by law. Power has also been given to the Parliament to

legislate on matters in the State List under certain circumstances. This is so

when a subject assumes national importance. The same is the case when an

emergency is declared by President. The Centre can exercise powers within a

State with the consent of the State or State concerned. Greater facility is given

for the amendment of the Constitution than that given in foreign countries.

5. The Constitution becomes unitary in times of emergency. To quote, " all

federal systems are placed in a tight mould of federalism. In no circumstances

can it change its form and shape. It can never be unitary. On the other hand,

the Indian Constitution can be both Unitary as well as federal, according to

requirement of time and circumstances".

6. The Indian federation maintains unity in all basic matters. To quote Dr.

Ambedkar, " The Federation being a dual polity based on divided authority with

separate legislative, executive and judicial powers for each of the two polities is

bound to produce diversities in laws, in administration and in judicial

 protection. Up to a certain point, this diversity does not matter. It may be

welcomed as being an attempt to accommodate the powers of government to

local needs and circumstances. But this diversity when it goes beyond a

certain point, is capable of producing chaos and has produced chaos in many

federal States".

7. The Indian Constitution does not set up the States as rivals to one another or to

the Union. Each is intended to work harmoniously in its own sphere without

impediment by the other, with an over-riding power of the Union where it is

necessary in the public interest. It has a nice balance of jurisdictions which has

worked out successfully so far and it is hopes that it will continue to work so

in times to come with good sense prevailing in all States.

8. The Supreme Court of India and the High Court form a single integrated

judiciary having jurisdiction over all cases arising under various laws- Union,

State, Constitutional, Civil and Criminal. To eliminate diversity of laws, codes

of civil and criminal law are placed in the Concurrent List. To maintain

uniformity in administration, the Constitution provides that there shall be All-

India services recruited on all India basis which shall be common to the Union

a) In case of inconsistency between Union and State laws, the Union laws shall

prevail.

b) Laws passed by the State may be reserved for considerations of the President

by the Governor. Some of them have to be specifically reserved and some of

them cannot be even introduced or moved in the State Legislature without the

previous sanction of the President.

It should be noted that there is no clear- cut formula or guidelines to decide whether a

system is federal or not. In the Indian context, it can be said that Indian Constitution is

basically federal with striking unitary features and so has been the attitude of law

courts in India while interpreting the structure of the Indian Constitution. However,

many States are not satisfied with Centre-State relationship and have requested for a

change in the fundamental features of the system of governments.

However, the States, especially where the opposition parties or regional parties are in

majority remain unsatisfied with the present set up of distribution of powers between

the Centre and the State and force the Central Government to appoint Sarkaria

Commission in 1983 to review the distribution of powers between the Centre and the

State within the purview of the Constitution of India. Although Sakaria Commission

had submitted its report in 1987, the main recommendations of this Commission are

yet to be implemented.
 CHAPTER-6

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS - MODIFICATION OF

FEDERAL PRINCIPLE IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION.

In the following constitutional provisions, it is pointed out that the Indian-Constitution

contains the modifications of the federal principle:

6.1 Parliament power to form New-States and alter boundaries of existing states:

(Art 2&3)

Art.2: gives complete discretion to parliament to 'admit' or 'establish' new-states on

suck terms & conditions as it thinks fit. Such terms & conditions must, however, be

consistent with the foundational-principles viz, the basic-structue of the constitution.

Art.3: Provide that, "parliament can by unilateral-action increase or diminish the-area

of any state or alter the boundaries of any state or alter the name of any state."

The very existence of the State thus depends upon the "Sweet-will of the Union

Government.

The power conferred on the Union-parliament to make territorial-adjustments is better

explained on historical-basis:

The Government, of India Act, 1935, which had for the first-time introduced the

federal- system in India deliberately created the constituent-units of the federation,

although they had no organic-roots in the past. The makers of the present constitution

were aware of peculiar- condition under which & the reasons for which the states

were formed & their boundaries were defined & so they deliberately adopted the

provisions in Art. 3 with a view to meeting the possibility of the redistribution of the

states territory after the integration of the Indian- States.

The changes thus contemplated (work-our) illustrate the working of the peculiar &

striking feature of the Indian-Constitution.

6.2 Parliament's power to make law on State-matters:

Article 249: Provides that, "if the upper House (Council of states) of the Union-

parliament passes a resolution, supported by not less than 2/3 rd of the members

present & voting, that it is necessary in the 'National-Interest' that parliament should

make laws with respect to any matter enumerated in the state-list, it would be

competent for parliament to make laws for the states with respect to that matter to be

operative for such period not exceeding 1 year, as may be specified therein.

In normal-course this cannot be done unless the Constitution is amended. This power

is given to parliament by the council of states itself by passing a resolution supported

by 2/3rd majority of the members present. Thus, in effect by this device the

constitution is amended by the agreement of majority of the states.

Thus Article 249 does not place the states in a subordinate-position..

Article 250: Provides that, "parliament shall have the power to make laws for the

whole or any part of the territory of India with respect to any matters enumerated in

the state-list when the proclamation of emergency is in operation."

Article 251: Provides that Parliament have the power to make laws on State-matters

under the Article 249 (in national-interest) and Article 250 (under Proclamation of

emergency). In both cases the power of the state legislature to deal with matters

falling in the state list is not abrogated. The Legislature of a state can thus make a law

on those matters which has been taken over by the Union-Legislature.

But in case of a conflict or inconsistency between a Union & a State-law, the former

will prevail.

Article 253: Provides that" parliament has power to make any law for the whole or any

part of the territory of India for implementing any treaty, agreement or convention with

any other country or countries or any decision made at any international conference."

Ex: Legislations relating to T.R.I.P.S., ensuring India's conformity with WTO

membership, are being enacted under this provision.

Questions are also being raised about the legal-tradition in our country under which

treaties become operative & binding without prior participation of parliament in their

making. They can be entered into & implemented by the Union executive in exercise

of its executive power under Article 73

6.3 Administrative-relations between the Union and States :

The Union Government is empowered to issue administrative-directions to the states

in relation to certain matters, these directions are binding on the states:

Article 256: Provides that, it shall be the duty of the state to exercise its executive-

powers so as to ensure that due-effect is given with in state to every Act of Parliament

& to every existing law which apply in the state. This is a constitutional-duty of every

state. The Govern of India is entitled to given directions to the state-government

regarding the duly which is imposed upon it by this article. Article 257: Provides the

control of the Union over state in certain cases:

a) The manner in which the executive-powers of the state shall be exercise so as

not to impede or abridge the executive-powers of the Union.

b) The construction & maintenance of means of communication, declared to be

of national or military-importance; &

 c) Measures to be taken for the protection of Railways within the start.

d) The authority given to the centre to enforce its administrative-directions against a

state which fails to comply with them is indented to "ensure-harmony" btw the

Union & the state. If a state exercises its executive authority as to impede or

obstructs the execution of Union-laws or services, that states exhibits a revolt

against the central government & hence to "maintain the integrity of the country".

It is right that the Union has been empowered to intervene.

6.4 Distribution of Legislative-power between the Union & the states (Article 246)

The Constitution in making the distribution of legislative-powers that the union & the

states, follows the government, of India 1935. It enumerates various items of

legislation in three- lists given in 7th Schedule:

List I The Union List

List II The State List 7th Schedule

List III The Concurrent List

The parliament has exclusive powers of legislation with respect to 97 items in List I

The State Legislatures have exclusive-powers with respect to 66 items in List II Both

Parliament & state Legislatures can make laws in respect to 47 items in List III.

6.5 Residuary powers of Legislation : (ARTICLE 248)

Parliament has exclusive power to make any law with respect to any matter not

enumerated in the concurrent. List or State-List. Such power shall include the power

of making any law imposing a tax not mentioned in either of those lists.
This Art. Assigns "Residuary-powers" of legislation exclusively to parliament Entry

97 of List I, Schedule VII to the constitution read with art. 246(i) also lays down thp.t

parliament has exclusive-power to make laws with respect to any mater not given in

List II or List III, including any tax not mentioned in either of those lists.

Complex modern governmental-administration, with the advancement of society,

expanding horizons of scientific & technical-language, in a federal-set up providing

for distribution of legislative-powers coupled with the power of judicial-review may

raise such situations that a subject of legislation may not squarely fall in any specific-

entry in three list.

In such a situation parliament would have power to legislate on the subject in the

exercise of residuary-powers under this Article & Under Article 246 (1) read with

Entry of List I.

6.6 Emergency-provisions

Article. 352 : Provides that "if the president is satisfied that a gave emergency exists

where by the security of India or any part of the territory is threatened, weather by

'Wan' or 'external' aggression or 'armed-rebellion, he by proclamation, make a

declaration to that effect.

When the proclamation of emergency is made under Article. 352, the normal

distribution of power between the centre & the states undergo a vital-change.
Parliament is empowered to make laws with respect to any matter enumerated in the

state- List.

The centre is empowered to give directions to any state as to manner in which the

state's executive power to be exercised.

Further, the president may be order, direct that all or any of the provisions of Article

278 to 279 relating to distribution of revenue between the centre & the state shall take

effect with such exception or modifications as he thinks fit.

Article 356: Provides that, " if the president, who is the head of the Union-executive

is satisfied that the Government, of a State cannot be carried on in accordance with the

provisions of the constitution he can issue a Proclamation to that effect. He can then

assume all the functions of the government of the state, including the powers of the

Governor."

The only exception is that he cannot assume any of the powers exercisable by the

High Court.

Article 360: Provides that, "if the President is satisfied that a situation has arisen which

threatens the 'Financial stability' or credit of India or any of its units, he can declare a

Financial-emergency. In such an event the President can issue necessary directions,

including order for the reduction of salaries and allowances of public-servants belonging

to union and the states. All Money-bills passed by the state-legislatures during the period

of financial- emergency are also subject to the control of the centre.

Effect of Emergency-provisions on Federalism:

The emergency-provisions which come into operation only on the happening of the

'specific-contingencies' do not modify or destroy the federal system. It is rather a

merit of the constitution that it visualizes the contingencies when the strict application

of the Federal- principle might destroy the basic assumptions on which our

constitution is built. The Indian constitution by adapting itself to the changed

circumstances strengthens the Government in its Endeavour to overcome the crisis.

In an emergency, the behavior of each federal-constitution is very much different

from that in peace time.

For example in Swiss Constitution, which is a federal Constitution expressly

empowers the federal government to intervene on its own initiatives if the external-

disorder might occur which endanger the safety of the nation.

 CHAPTER-7

JUDICIAL INTREPRETATION

The debate whether India has a 'Federal Constitution' and 'Federal Government' has

been grappling the Apex court in India because of the theoretical label given to the

Constitution of India, namely, federal, quasi-federal, unitary. The first significant case

where this issue was discussed at length by the apex Court was

1. State of West Bengal V. Union of India19: The main issue involved in this case

was the exercise of sovereign powers by the Indian states. The legislative competence

of the Parliament to enact a law for compulsory acquisition by the Union of land and

other properties vested in or owned by the state and the sovereign authority of states

as distinct entities was also examined. The apex court held that the Indian

Constitution did not propound a principle of absolute federalism. Though the

authority was decentralized this was mainly due to the arduous task of governing the

large territory. The court outlined the characteristics, which highlight the fact that the

Indian Constitution is not a "traditional federal Constitution". Firstly, there is no

separate Constitution for each State as is required in a federal'state. The Constitution

is the supreme document, which governs all the states. Secondly, the Constitution is

liable to be altered by the Union Parliament alone and the units of the country i.e. the

States have no power to alter it. Thirdly, the distribution of powers is to facilitate local

governance by the states and national policies to be decided by the Centre. Lastly, as

against a federal Constitution, which contains internal checks and balances, the Indian

Constitution renders supreme power upon the courts to invalidate any action violative

of the Constitution. The Supreme Court further held that both the legislative and

executive power of the States are subject to the respective supreme powers of the
Union. Legal sovereignty of the Indian nation is vested in the people of India. The

political sovereignty is distributed between the Union and the States with greater

weight age in favor of the Union. Another reason which militates against the theory of

the supremacy of States is that there is no dual citizenship in India. Thus, the learned

judges concluded that the structure of the Indian Union as provided by the

Constitution one is centralized, with the States occupying a secondary position vis-a-

vis the Centre, hence the Centre possessed the requisite powers to acquire properties

belonging to States.

As against this opinion, was the judgment rendered by Justice Subba Rao, the great

champion of State rights. Justice Subba Rao was of the opinion that under the scheme of

the Indian Constitution, sovereign powers are distributed between the Union and the

States within their respective spheres. As the legislative field of the union is much wider

than that of the State legislative assemblies, the laws passed by the Parliament prevail

over the State laws in case of any conflict. In a few cases of legislation where inter-State

disputes are involved, sanction of the President is made mandatory for the validity of

those laws. Further, every State has its judiciary with the State High Court at the apex.

This, in the opinion of the learned judge does not affect the federal principle. He gives the

parallel of Australia, where appeals against certain decisions of the High Courts of the

Commonwealth of Australia lie with the Privy Council. Thus the Indian federation cannot

be negated on this account. In financial matters the Union has more resources at its

disposal as compared to the states. Thus, the Union being in charge of the purse strings,

can always, persuade the States to abide by its advice. The powers vested in the union in

case of national emergencies, internal disturbance or external aggression, financial crisis,

and failure of the Constitutional machinery of the State are

all extraordinary powers in the nature of safety valves to protect the country's future.

The power granted to the Union to alter the boundaries of the States is also an

extraordinary power to meet future contingencies. In their respective spheres, both

executive and legislative, the States are supreme. The minority view expressed by

Justice Subba Rao has consistency with the federal scheme under the Indian

Constitution. The Indian Constitution accepts the federal concept and distributes the

sovereign powers between the coordinate Constitutional entities, namely, the Union

and the States.

The next landmark case where the nature of the Indian Constitution was discussed at

length was

2. State of Rajasthan V. Union of India.7 The learned judges embarked upon a

discussion of the abstract principles of federalism in the face of the express provisions

of the Constitution. It was stated that even if it is possible to see a federal structure

behind the establishment of separate executive, legislative and judicial organs in the

States, it is apparent from the provision illustrated in Article 356 that the Union

Government is entitled to enforce its own views regarding the administration and

granting of power in the States. The extent of federalism of the Indian Union is

largely watered down by the needs of progress, development and making the nation

integrated, politically and economically co-ordinated, and socially and spiritually

uplifted. The Court then proceeded to list out some of the Constitutional provisions

which establish the supremacy of the Parliament over the State legislatures.

7 AIR 1977 SC 1361

In conclusion the apex Court held that it was the 'prerogative' of the Union Parliament

to issue directives if they were for the benefit of the people of the State and were

aimed at achieving the objectives set out in the Preamble. The issue of federalism was

carried forward in:

3. S.R.Bommai V. Union of India.8 Four opinions were rendered, expressing varying

views. Justice Ahmadi opined that in order to understand the true nature of the Indian

Constitution, it is essential to comprehend the concept of federalism. The essence of

the federation is the existence of the Union and the States and the distribution of

powers between them. The significant absence of expressions like 'federal' or

'federation' in the Constitution, the powers of the Parliament under Articles 2 and 3,

the extraordinary powers conferred to meet emergency situations, residuary powers,

powers to issue directions to the States, concept of single citizenship and the system

of integrated judiciary create doubts about the federal nature of the Indian

Constitution. Thus, it would be more appropriate to describe the Constitution of India

as quasi- federal or unitary rather than a federal Constitution in the true nature of the

term. As opposed to this, Justice Sawant and Justice Kuldip Singh regarded

democracy and federalism as essential features of the Indian Constitution. The

overriding powers of the Centre in the event of emergency do not destroy the federal

character of the Indian Constitution. The learned judges elaborated upon the scope

and justified use of the power conferred on the president by Article 356 which will not

restrict the scope of the independent powers of the respective States for" every State is

constituent political unit and has to have an exclusive Executive and Legislature

elected and constituted by the same process as the Union Government."

8
JT(1994) 2 SC 215, (1994) 3 SCC 1, AIR 1994 SC 1918
In the opinion of Justice Ramaswamy, the units of the federation had no roots in the

past and hence the Constitution does not provide mechanisms to uphold the territorial

integrity of the States above the powers of the Parliament. The end sought to be

achieved by the Constitution makers was to place the whole country under the control

of a unified Central Government, while the States were allowed to exercise their

sovereign powers within their legislative, executive and administrative powers. The

essence of federalism lies in the distribution of powers between the Centre and the

State. Justice Ramawamy declared the Indian structure as organic federalism,

designed to suit the parliamentary form of Government and the diverse conditions

prevailing in India. Justice Jeevan Reddy and Justice Agarwal opined that the

expression federal or federal form of government has no fixed meaning. The

Constitution is also distinct in character, a federation with a bias in favour of the

Centre. But this factor does not reduce the States to mere appendages of the Centre.

Within the sphere allotted to them the states are supreme.

4. Keshvananda Bharti v. State of Kerala22

The basic structure this case, some of the Judges in full Constitutional Bench

expressed federalism as one of the basic features of the Indian Constitution.

Rajamannar Commission

In 1969, the Government of Tamil Nadu, dissatisfied with the constitution, appointed

a Rajamannar Committee, "to examine the entire question regarding the relationship

btw the centre & the states in federal set up, with reference to the provisions of the

constitution of India & to suggest suitable amendments to the constitution so as to

secure to the states the utmost autonomy"

The committee in its report issued in 1971 criticized certain aspects of the Indian-

constitution because they were not reconcilable.

The Committee accepted the position that the power vested in the centre "does not

reduce the states of the state to that of administrative-units in a unitary government as

in the days of the British role.

The committee suggested some modifications in the constitutional -provisions relating

to the distribution of legislative & taxing powers emergency etc.

The proposals made by Rajamannar Committee suffer from an extreme over-

statement of the case for the state-autonomy.

These proposals did not evoke much public-enthusiasm & were endorsed neither by

any state-government nor by any All India political party & the report became a dead-

letter.

Sarkaria-Commission

In 1983, in response to an insistent demand to review the Central-State relations, the

central government appointed the Sarkaria Commission under the chairmanship of

Justice R.S. Sarkaria, a retired Judge of a Supreme Court. The limitations on the

commissions-term of inquiry was that, in making its recommendations, the

commission was expected to ensure that they were within the constitutional-

provisions which safeguard the independence, unit& integrity of the country.

The commission presented its report in 1988.

It has rejected the demand for curtaining the powers of the centre saying that a strong

centre is necessary to preserve the unity & integrity of the country.

The commission's view is that there is no need for drastic changes in the existing-

provisions of the constitution.

It its view the fundamental-provisions of the constitution have done reasonably well

&with stood the stresses & strains of heterogeneous society in throes of change.
CHAPTER 9-RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INDIA
1. Firstly, the 73rd and 74th amendments of the Constitution in 1992 have created

a third-tier of local-governments i.e. the Panchayats and Municipalities. Of

course these amendments have no impact on central state relations but they

encourage federal-tendencies at the base.

2. With reference to Article 356, the Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai v. Union of

India emphasized the federal-character of the constitution and has imposed

several procedural restraints on the exercise of power by the centre.

3. In quick succession, once in 1987 and again in 1998, the President has asked

the central-Cabinet to reconsider its advice to impose President's role under

Article 356. On both occasions the cabinet dropped its recommendations. The

Union-Government has become very cautious in exercising its power under

Article 356. For quite some-time now the power has not at all been exercises

4. This has changed the real-politics of the country which is not moving towards a

federal- government even through the constitution may not be federal in the classical-

description of K.C. wheare.

5. A centre state commission has again been constituted in 2007 which is to look into

the developments since the last commission, arising particularly in the light of

globalization.

12 Sarkaria Commission Report (1988) Para 9.6.01- 9.6.06

13 www.legalserviceindia.com
 CHAPTER-9

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, one of the chief architects of the Indian Constitution said: "Our

Constitution would be both Unitary as well as Federal according to the requirements

of time and circumstances.

In historical as well as present context, the above statement is fully correct because:

federalism is not static but a dynamic concept", it is always in the process of evolution

and constant adjustments from time to time in the light of the contemporary needs the

demands being made on it.

For making Indian Federalism more robust and viable, the differences between the

centre and the state must be sort out so that India may successfully meet the great-

challenges of difference, external and internal -security and socio-economic

development. It is very necessary that neither the federal set-up becomes unitary nor

that it becomes too lose and weak, affecting the unitary and integrity of the nation.

As India is a developing nation, federal government is necessary for it to bring

progress. India is a country with unity in diversity. There are so many states that are

unique in their cultures and traditions and still feel strongly the oneness among them.

As each state has its own way of lifestyle and culture, it is important to follow federal

form of government in India. As also the Constitutional laws of India suit the federal

governance, India requires federal ruling to maintain national integration. Indians are

having lot of differences in their language, culture or lifestyle and hence live as
different states. But all Indians feel that they are all one and belong to only one country.

Therefore, India deserves to have Federal Government.

It is time to undertake a study of Indian Federalism with a view to evaluate the trends,

frictions and difficulties which have developed in the area of inter-governmental

relations and to seek to evolve ways and means to meet the challenging task of

making the Indian federation a more robust, strong and workable system so that the

country may meet the tasks of self- improvement and development.

The responsibility lies on not only the jurists and policy framers, but also the citizens

of the country to work in a harmonious manner for the development of the country.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. List of sources
 
 list of books referred:-


Indian Constitutional law by Prof MP Jain, 6lh Edition 2010, published by

 Lexis Nexis Butterworths, Wadhwa Nagpur.


Constitutional Law of India by Prof. G.S. Pande, 
Tenth Edition 2007,
 published by M/s University Book House (P) ltd.


Introduction to the Constitution of India by Dr. Durga Basu, 19th Edition

 Reprint 2006, published by Wadhwa and Company Law Publishers


Constitutional law of India by V.D. Mahajan,
 Seventh Edition 1991, published
 by Eastern Book Company, Lucknow


Constitutional
Law of India by Prof. Narendra Kumar, published by Allahabad
 law Agency



2. List of websites referred :-
www.wikipedia.com
www.legalserviceindia.com
www.ebc-india.com
www.thehindu.co.in

3. List of cases referred:-

 
 Keshavananda v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 S.C. 1461.
 
 State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, AIR 1977 S.C. 1361.
 
 Satpal v. State of Punjab, (1982) 1 S.C.C. 12, 16.

 
Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, AIR 1984 S.C. 1420, 1427.
  
 State of West Bengal v. Union of India, AIR 1963 S.C. 1241
 
In re Under Article 143, AIR 1965 S.C. 745, 762


Supreme
 Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India, (1993) 4 S.C.C.
 441
 
 Special reference of No.l of 1998, AIR 1999 S.C. 1


S.R.Bommai v.Union of India, J.T. (1994) 2 S.C. 215, (1994) 3 S.C.C. 1, AIR
1994 S.C.1918

2
Constitutional law of India by Rajendra D. Anbhule, 2010, 2nd Edition.
6
AIR 1963 SC 1241
8
AIR 1973 SC 1461.
11
AIR 1984 SC 1420 1427.
13
AIR 1984 SC 1420, 1427
15
AIR 1984 SC 1420, 1427.
23
Constitutional law of India by Kailash Rai. Pg 46