FEDERALISM

The document discusses the nature of federalism in India, questioning whether India is truly a
federal state. Some scholars argue that India's system is "quasi-federal," meaning it has both
federal and unitary characteristics. The debate revolves around whether India's
Constitution grants real sovereignty to both the central and state governments or if the
central government holds more power.

P.K. Tripathi, a legal scholar, criticized India's federal structure, arguing that it does not meet the
essential features of true federalism. He suggested that calling India a federal state is misleading
because the Constitution does not fully separate the powers of the central and state governments.

Federalism, in general, means dividing power between national and regional governments so that
both have independent authority in their areas. The American Constitution is often considered a
model of federalism, where both the central and state governments have equal standing.
However, in India, the central government has greater authority, especially in emergencies or
when it comes to changing state boundaries.

Historically, early federal systems like those in the U.S., Canada, and Australia were based
on "competitive federalism," where central and state governments often competed for
power. Over time, countries moved towards "cooperative federalism," where both levels of
government work together. In India, scholars argue whether the country follows
cooperative federalism or whether the central government dominates.

The document also examines legal cases that questioned India's federal structure. In State of
West Bengal v. Union of India, the court ruled that Indian states do not share sovereignty
with the central government, meaning the central government has more power. Some
scholars, like P.K. Tripathi, argue that courts have tried to make India seem more federal
through legal interpretations rather than its actual constitutional design.

Another example is the State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, where the court said India appears
to be federal but is actually more unitary, meaning the central government has overriding control.
Similarly, the Tamil Nadu government once suggested changes to increase state power, but these
arguments were based on the assumption that India is already a federal state, which some
scholars dispute.

Despite these debates, the document argues that India should be considered a federal state with
its unique model. Unlike the rigid federal structure of the U.S., India's Constitution allows
flexibility to adapt to changing needs. While the central government has more power, states still
have significant control in their areas.

The discussion ultimately highlights two views: the "orthodox school" of federalism, which
follows the American model and sees India as non-federal, and the "dynamic progressive
school," which recognizes India's unique cooperative federalism. The document concludes that
India has its own version of federalism and should not be compared directly with other countries.

Q.3 Answer the following. Justify all your answers with logic and the provisions of the
Constitution.

(i) Consider the model of the Indian Constitution and answer what is your opinion whether
it is federal or not? You should also answer whether any Constitution should be federal or
not?

The Indian Constitution incorporates both federal and unitary elements, making it quasi-federal.
According to K.C. Wheare, India follows a "quasi-federal" structure as it does not adhere strictly
to the principles of classical federalism. The Constitution provides for a division of powers
between the Centre and the States (Schedule VII), but the Centre has overriding powers in times
of emergency (Article 356). Furthermore, the power to amend the Constitution (Article 368)
largely vests with the Union. Therefore, India exhibits a unique form of federalism that is more
centralized compared to classical federal states like the United States.

Regarding whether any Constitution should be federal, the answer depends on the socio-political
structure of the nation. A federal Constitution is preferable in a country with a vast and diverse
population, allowing regional autonomy while maintaining national unity. However, a unitary
system may be more suitable for smaller or more homogeneous nations that require strong
central governance.

(ii) Deal with the essential features of federalism and argue how are they present or absent
in the Indian Constitution.

Federalism is characterized by the following features:

1. Dual Government – Present in India through the Centre and the States.
2. Division of Powers – Provided in Schedule VII, which divides powers into Union, State,
and Concurrent Lists.
3. Written Constitution – Present, as India has a comprehensive written Constitution.
4. Supremacy of the Constitution – Present, as both the Centre and States derive authority
from it.
5. Independent Judiciary – Present, as the Supreme Court is the guardian of the
Constitution (Article 131, 141, 143).
6. Bicameralism – Present, with the Rajya Sabha representing states.

However, India deviates from classical federalism in the following ways:

1. Strong Centre – The Union List has more subjects than the State List, and Parliament
can legislate on State List subjects under certain conditions (Article 249, 250, 252, 253).
2. Emergency Provisions – The Centre assumes greater control during an emergency
(Article 352, 356, 360).
3. Single Citizenship – Unlike the U.S., Indian citizens have only one nationality.
 4. Integrated Judiciary – Unlike a strict federal system, India has a unified judiciary.

(iii) Explain a political development of your choice that critically highlights the practice of
federalism in India.

A significant political development showcasing federalism in India was the implementation of

(iv) If you were to choose two features of the Indian Constitution which further the case of
federalism, what will they be? Similarly, what will be the two features which do not favour
the case of federalism?

Features that strengthen federalism:

1. Division of Powers (Schedule VII) – Clearly demarcates Union, State, and Concurrent
subjects, ensuring autonomy in governance.
2. Independent Judiciary (Article 131, 141, 143) – Ensures federal balance by
adjudicating disputes between the Centre and the States.

Features that weaken federalism:

1. Emergency Provisions (Article 356) – Allows the Centre to take over State functions,
undermining state autonomy.
2. All-India Services (Article 312) – Officers like IAS, IPS serve under both State and
Centre, limiting state discretion in governance.

(v) Which is the one feature of the Indian Constitution which you would rather change to
make it more federal?

One key change to enhance federalism in India would be to reform Article 356 (President’s
Rule). The provision is often misused for political gains by the Centre to dismiss state
governments. Instead, a more independent mechanism—such as a judicial or parliamentary
review before imposing President’s Rule—should be instituted to prevent arbitrary use of central
authority.

This would strengthen India’s federal structure by ensuring that states retain their autonomy and
political stability is maintained.