Judiciary in Safeguarding Federal Features of Indian Constitution: A Critical Analysis

The Indian constitution provides for an independent and integrated judiciary. According to V.
Dicey, “Federalism means legalism- the predominance of the judiciary in the constitution- the
prevalence of the spirit of legality among the people.” It is so because in a federal system, the
judiciary has to perform an important role of being the guardian of the constitution and arbitrator
of disputes between centre and states or among states. It acts as an independent and impartial
authority between them.

The judiciary plays a crucial role in safeguarding federal features by ensuring that the principles
of federalism are upheld. Here's how it does this:

Judiciary protects the federal rights. When there is encroachment on State’s autonomy by centre,
judiciary plays an important role of safeguarding it’s autonomy. Similarly when state makes law
on subject matters exclusively within the jurisdiction of the centre, judiciary protects the interest
and rights by declaring the law made by state null and void.

It interprets the division of powers between federal and state governments. This helps to prevent
either level of government from overstepping its bounds and ensures that both operate within
their constitutional limits.

Courts also review federal and state legislation to ensure that it conforms to the constitution. This
process of judicial review helps maintain the constitutionality of laws and preserves the federal
structure.

Courts adjudicate disputes between federal and state governments, or between states. This
prevents conflicts from escalating and maintains a balance of power. Many a times, through its
judicial activism, it has also devised principles like pith and substance and harmonious
construction for solving such disputes.

By performing these functions, the judiciary upholds the principles of federalism and ensures a
balance between different levels of government. The Supreme Court of India has also held that
the federalist nature of our country is part and parcel of the basic structure of the Constitution.
This, in this research project the researcher has critically analysed the role of the judiciary in
safeguarding the federal features of the Indian constitution.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

 To analyse the relationship between federalism and judiciary and study the role of
judiciary in safeguarding federal features of the Indian constitution.
 To analyse the ways in which judiciary perform its roles.

HYPOTHESIS

That the judiciary plays a crucial role in safeguarding the federal features of the Indian
constitution.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. How does judiciary safeguards the federal features of the Indian constitution?
2. What are some of the principles devised by the judiciary to maintain the federal features?
3. What are some of the landmark judgements where judiciary safeguarded the federal
features?
4. Does judiciary have been effectively fulfilling its responsibility?

MODE OF CITATION

The researcher has followed the 20th edition of the Bluebook for the purpose of citation.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The researcher will be relying on Doctrinal method of research to complete the project.

SOURCES OF DATA

The researcher will be relying on both primary and secondary sources to complete the project.
TENTATIVE CHAPTERIZATION

1. Introduction: relationship between federalism and judiciary

2. Role of judiciary in safeguarding federal features
3.
4. Landmark judgements
5. Conclusion & suggestions

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. By M.P. Jain.

 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA By V.N. Shukla.

Role of judiciary in safeguarding the federal features

The Indian Constitution says that India that is Bharat shall be union of states. According to our
constitution, India is a federal country. The Term State is expressly mentioned in our constitution
making it an autonomous body. Federalism is a structure of government where two governments
i.e. centre and state work together within their respective spheres.

For ensuring the federal structure, there is a clear-cut division of legislative power between the state
and the central government. Schedule 7 of the Constitution provides for 3 lists .i.e. Union list, state
list and the concurrent list. In union list, centre has exclusive power to make laws. In state list, the
states are given exclusive jurisdiction to perform legislative functions. Under the concurrent list,
both the centre and the state have power to make laws in the respective subject-matters. Residuary
power is given to the centre under Union list.

The distribution of legislative power is based on territory-wise and subject-matter wise. The state
can legislate only on those matters which are given in state list and the concurrent list and the state
law will be applicable throughout the territory of the state. The central laws are applicable
throughout the territory of India and are based on the subject- matters mentioned under union list
and the state list.
Even though there is clear cut demarcation of power between the centre and state in the constitution
but there are chances of conflict between the centre and the state with respect to legislative power.
The role of judiciary comes into picture to resolve the conflict between the state and the centre.

Unlike USA, in India there is only one judiciary which administers both the centre as well as the
state laws. The major conflict which exists between the state and the centre is regarding their
legislative power. On Various instances it is alleged by the state that the centre has drafted law on
the subject-matter listed in the state list and transgressed their power. For instance, the three farm
laws legislated by the central government created ruckus among the states and the states contended
that it is beyond the legislative competence of the centre as agriculture is mentioned under the state
list. Many a times law made by the centre and the states are challenged before the court of law
alleging that it is beyond the legislative competence of the particular legislature. The courts then
look into the objective of the act and try to find out whether the law shall stand valid or be annulled
based on the legislative competence of the respective body which framed the law. If the
competency is found to exist then law is constitutionally valid but if the legislature is found
incompetent, then the law is struck down by the court.

The court had devised several doctrines to order to decide the legislative competence while
promoting cooperative federalism. For instance, the principle of “Pith and substance”
according to which the entries in the lists are interpreted as fields of
legislation. If a law made is substantially within the legislative competence of
the legislature and it incidentally touches the subject-matter which is under the
competence of other legislature, the law is not declared invalid on that ground
and the court terms the law as constitutionally valid. Thus, the courts most of
the time tries that both the state and the centre settle the dispute amicably.

Another point of controversy arises in case of laws made by the centre and the
state on the same point. It generally happens on the laws made on the subject-
matter enlisted in the concurrent list. On those matters, the general rule is that
if both of them are in conflict with each other, the law made by the parliament
prevails and the state law to the extent of conflict is declared to be repugnant
and is termed as void. But, there are situations where if the state law gets the
assent of the president, then even if the state law is in conflict with the central
 law, the state law prevails within the territory of that particular state. Here the
doctrine used by the court is the doctrine of repugnancy.

Also, issue arises when the parliament exercises residuary powers to make laws on
those subjects that are expressly excluded in the union list. For instance, the
parliament tried to make laws on agriculture subject which is expressly excluded
under the various entries of union list. There judiciary again has its role to play. The
court prevent the encroachment is cases where legislatures tries to draft
legislation on those subject-matters which are not allocated to it under the
distribution of legislative powers as envisaged by the constitution.

In our constitution, there are some provisions which give more power to the
parliament than the state. But the purpose of making a stronger centre was
that whenever an emergency like situation arises, the centre would assume
the control of the whole country and protect the property and citizens of the
country as a whole. This is to keep all the states together and ensure national
integrity and convenient governance.

Article 352-360 discuss about emergency provisions. The president has power
to proclaim emergency on the advice of Council of Ministers. Here, the
constituent assembly drafted these provisions giving more power to the centre
so that the whole country stands together at the time of difficult situations.
There are three types of emergency i.e. National emergency, state emergency
and financial emergency.

National emergency is proclaimed on three grounds i.e. war, external

aggression and armed rebellion. Armed rebellion substituted “internal
disturbance” by 44th constitutional amendment act 1978 after emergency was
declared on the ground of internal disturbance by Indira Gandhi. The central
government through 38th constitutional amendment act removed the scope of
judicial review in case of National emergency. The Supreme Court in Minerva
mills vs Union of India1, said that the proclamation of national emergency

1
Minerva Mills vs Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789.
can be challenged if it is done with Malafide intention or if based on completely
irrelevant and extraneous grounds. Through this judgement also we can
understand that if power is given to the central government to proclaim
national emergency but if that is misused, the proclamation of emergency
would be struck down by the judiciary. National emergency provision is being
discussed here During National emergency the legislative power of the state is
taken over by the parliament which is against the federal structure but this
also does not remain unchecked because the scope of judicial review is there.
Here also, the court tries to maintain the federal structure of the country.

Article 356 provides for state emergency also known as president’s rule. This
emergency is proclaimed by the president when either on the recommendation
of the governor of the state or on its own, the president feels that there is a
complete breakdown of constitutional machinery in the state. In such a case all
the powers of the legislative assembly comes in the hands of the parliament.
The state assembly becomes dead and the parliament exercises the legislative
power of the state. This provision is also against the federal concept. Many
times it has been misused by the centre when the political party ruling at the
centre and the political party ruling in the state are different, then the centre
tried to misuse this power and tried to take the control of that state by
imposing president’s rule. Here, also the role of the judiciary was relevant. The
court has on various occasions has said that this power under article 356 is not
absolute and is subject to judicial review. It is to be exercised only when the
state machinery is not working according to the provisions of the constitution.

Financial emergency under article 360 is proclaimed where the president is of

the opinion that financial stability or credit of India or any part of India is
threatened. In such cases, the financial power is assumed by the parliament
over the territory wherever the emergency is proclaimed. However, in the
entire history of the Indian constitution, financial emergency is never
proclaimed. This provision is also contrary to the federal concept as power of
the state would be taken over by the centre if proclaimed but the court has the
power to judicially review the decision of proclamation of financial emergency.

On these various occasions we can easily identify that the judiciary plays an
immense role in protecting the federal structure of the country. Our
constitution makers have tried their best for ensuring the independence of
Judiciary which protects the constitutional values like federal structure.