IS INDIAN CONSTITUTION FEDERAL IN NATURE?

This article is written by Ayesha Swain, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

ABSTRACT

Due to the separation of powers between the national and state governments, the Indian Constitution is sometimes described as having a federal structure. This article examines the Indian Constitution’s federal elements, highlighting significant clauses and providing background information. It also goes over the special characteristics that set it apart from other federal systems. The hybrid federalism of India and its consequences for how the Indian state operates are discussed in the conclusion. In this article it has been talked about federalism and the features of federalism and unitary of Indian Constitution to give a deep understanding of this some cases.

KEY WORDS

Constitution, Federalism, Unitary, Government, Nature

INTRODUCTION

The history of India’s constitution is instructive; it describes the nation as a union of states, a sovereign, socialist, secular, and democratic republic via a parliamentary form of government; this parliamentary form of government is considered federal in structure and has unitary features. The basic idea that the country’s administration (or governance) is built on is established by precedent or the country’s founding statute. It outlines the general structure and duties of the main government institutions in addition to the procedures for interacting with the populace. In the current situation, when questions about the actual federalism are being raised, sudden contradictions have arisen over the substance of the constitution. Although the Indian Constitution is quasi-federal in nature, that is, federal in structure and unitary in spirit, this idea has been slightly attacked as the pillars of federalism have begun to disappear where the federal structure and unitary spirit overlap. This situation has called into question whether federalism exists in India.

Federalism, which there is a two-level government with evenly distributed troops and resources on each level. The Central and State governments effectively maintain balance while simultaneously functioning independently through their coordinated efforts. As a result, this form of administration offers a well-established system for maintaining unity and respectable variety.

FEDERALISM IN INDIA

When it comes to federalism, the fundamental element that endears it to its setting is the way that it demands that a nation’s constitution be treated as Suprema Lexa, or the unquestionable law that everyone must abide by and entrusts its final interpretation to an independent body. Solid court established under Article 131 of the Indian Constitution ensures the unmatched quality of the constitution by protecting the balanced split among the centre and the states from interference from unitary governments, which is a crucial component for maintaining the bureaucratic standard because this dominant power aids in managing the balance among the centre and the states and subsequently constructing an ideal requirement. It is well known that the psychology beneath federalism is a desire for a group without a unitary structure, as depicted by DICEY when he speaks to the unity of a state as well as the separability of its units. However, there isn’t a single nation on earth that fully satisfies the fundamental principles of federalism. It is important to remember that in a country, there should be harmony between the theory and application of the law, with the constitution serving as the theory and the government acting as the application of the law. A few countries might have a federal constitution, while others might have a federal government, which makes it important to determine whether a country is federal or quasi-federal.[1]

The Union government including the state governments are given different levels of legislative, administrative, and executive authority according to the Constitution. A Union List, a State List, and a Concurrent List, which reflect the powers granted to the union government, the state governments, and the powers shared among them, are used to categories the legislative powers. The Constitution also calls for the creation of a multilayer or multilayered federation involving several systems for distributing political authority. Given that it transitioned from a unitary system underneath British rule to a federal one after independence, Indian federalism is exceptional in its setting. Over time, Indian federalism has encountered a number of difficulties and problems, including the linguistic reorganization of states, regional movements, and aspirations for autonomy.[2]

When there are significant problems in the states, if the nation, like India, has the ability to connect in such a situation by the means of interstate dispute resolution rather than the Centre exceeding the state’s limited authority, yet by interstate cooperation and engagement where the equilibrium among the centre as well as the states is determined by shared recognition or mutual acceptance where in the Articles 261, 262, and 263 a the Interstate committee is established to resolve the issue.

In the case of State of West Bengal v. Union of India, The Indian Constitution is not genuinely federal in nature. The basis for the division of authority among the Union and its member states is the fact that only those are granted to the States for the purpose of dealing with local issues, while the remainder, especially those that tend to preserve the nation’s economic, industrial, and commercial unity, remain with the Union. Also, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, The Indian Union is, in a way, federal. However, the requirements of growth and development of the nation, which must be regionally integrated, economically and politically coordinated, and socially, intellectually, and spiritually elevated, substantially damp down the scope of federalism in it. With such a structure, the States are unable to obstruct the legitimate and well-planned growth of the nation in the direction set forth by the federal government.

Therefore, based on the aforementioned conclusions, it can be concluded that the system, because of its dual character, is federal in regular times but may change towards a unitary form in times of emergency or when circumstances need it.[3]

There is no real federalism in India. The Indian Constitution blends what are known as non-federal qualities with features of both a federal and a unitary government. India is seen to be a quasi-federal state as a result. The Indian Constitution is referred to as “a federal structure with an overwhelming leaning towards the Centre” by the highest court of India. Let’s now talk about the unitary and non-federal aspects of the Indian Constitution.

FEDERAL FEATURES OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION

Constitution is the highest law. In India, the Constitution is the highest law, superseding all other laws, including notifications, orders, ordinances, bylaws, rules, and even customs that have legal standing. The Constitution serves as the legal foundation for federal states. The Constitution regulates and controls all forms of authority, whether they are exercised at the federal or state level and whether they are legislative, administrative, or judicial. According to Article 13(2), the State may not enact legislation that restricts or eliminates any of the rights provided by Part III of the Constitution; to the extent that this prohibition is violated, the legislation is void. Although the Constitution is regarded as paramount in India, this does not mean that its supremacy should be upheld in practice or even just in theory. Our Constitution includes a moving Preamble that reflects the aspirations and desires of the Indian people, as well as a section on the Directive Principles of State Policy that outlines how the goals of the people can be achieved through legislative action while respecting the citizens’ Fundamental Rights, the enforcement of which can only be suspended under extreme circumstances. A democratic system like ours depends on a government operating within the Constitution in line with its language and spirit as well as the laws that must be accepted by the population at large and upheld to be successful. A written constitution is necessary for a federal government to function. UK is not considered a federal nation since it lacks a formal constitution. In a federal system, the States enter into a treaty, the provisions of which must be reduced to paper in the shape of a constitution that is written. There is no questioning the stability that the Constitution’s written form brings to the nation’s overall government. Without a written Constitution outlining the extent of the Center’s and the States’ powers, there would be confusion, miscommunication, and disputes as the Centre as well as the States would try to overstep their respective boundaries of authority. The 7th Schedule of the Constitution provides for the division of political authority amongst national and regional administrations using three lists: the Union, State, and Concurrent lists. Just the Centre deals with the problems listed in the Union List, States with the problems listed in the State List, and the Concurrent List has topics that both the Centre and the State can legislate on. The Canadian Constitution served as the inspiration for this three-list system. Certain abilities, however, are not included in one of each of the three lists. These are referred to as residual powers and, in accordance with Entry 97 of Article 248, largely belong to the Centre.

UNITARY FEATURES OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION

The Indian Constitution establishes a dual polity in which the States have their own distinct constitutional identities and the centralized government is not just a league of States, nor are the States the Central Government’s administrative divisions or agencies. The Indian Constitution does, however, include some significant centralizing tendencies that give the Central Government the most authority. There are historical explanations for this centralization; for example, the constitution’s founders believed that India would disintegrate if the central authority was weak at the time of the country’s division.  A basic unitary system has a single legislative branch that was established by the constitution and is controlled as a single entity. Power is purely top-down. A unitary state is one in which all administrative divisions (subnational units) only have the authority that the central government decides to grant them. These states are sovereign states controlled as a single entity.[4] The Indian Parliament may very simply modify the Indian Constitution. In several cases, Parliament may modify the Constitution without the consent of state legislatures. In contrast, the Union and state legislatures take part in all constitutional amendments under a real federation. These forms are very stiff and challenging to modify. The following entities or states each have an equal number of representatives in the upper chamber of the legislature under a real federation. However, the states are not equally represented within our Rajya Sabha. those with a higher population have more Rajya Sabha members than those with a lower population. The Rajya Sabha, the upper chamber of the Indian Parliament, is not fairly representative for all the states that make up the Indian Union. The President of India has emergency powers under the Indian Constitution. Under three circumstances, he may declare an emergency across the nation. The union government becomes supremely strong and takes complete control of the state governments when an emergency is proclaimed. Loss of independence for state governments. It goes against federation ideals.[5]

CHALLENGES BEFORE INDIAN FEDERALISM

• The national cohesion and unity of India have been put in jeopardy by the emergence of regional parties as well as movements founded on linguistic, ethnic, religious, or cultural identities. More autonomy, a special status, or even independence from the Indian union have been advocated by some areas or organizations. As an illustration, consider the desire for Gorkhaland in West Bengal and Bodoland in Assam.
• Powers between the federal government and the states are not clearly and fairly divided. By using different tools like the President’s rule, the Governor’s function, central legislation, etc., the Centre may meddle in the affairs of the states since it has greater resources and authority than they do. The governments’ authority and financial flexibility to implement their very own welfare and development strategies are constrained. For instance, the Supreme Court later overturned President’s rule, which had been imposed in 2016 on the basis of constitutional collapse in Arunachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand.
• The budgetary ties between the federal government along with the states are neither fair or open. The majority of taxes are collected by the centre, which then allocates them to the states in accordance with its judgement or standards. The Centre provides loans, grants-in-aid, and other transfers to the states. The states’ ability to tax and borrow is constrained. For instance, numerous states have voiced concerns about the inadequacy of recompense for revenue losses brought on by the implementation of the GST.
• The Parliament has the authority to modify the Constitution with a special majority. Except for a few issues that directly impact them, the states have no involvement or input in the amendment process. For instance, the Centre did not engage the state administration or other interested parties before deciding to repeal Article 370 and split Jammu and Kashmir in two union territories in 2019. As an illustration, Andhra Pradesh’s opposition to the establishment of Telangana from that state in 2014 resulted in demonstrations and bloodshed.

CONCLUSION

Even though the Indian Constitution is frequently referred to as having a federal structure, it is important to acknowledge its distinctive features. It creates a quasi-federal structure by fusing federal ideas with unitary elements. India’s historically and socio-political backdrop, which includes the requirement for a robust central authority to uphold unity in a heterogeneous nation, has resulted in this hybrid character. In conclusion, the separation of authority, bicameral legislative body, and judicial control show that the Indian Constitution is federal in essence. To ensure national unity and integrity, the central authority is empowered by unitary elements, which must be acknowledged. Its dedication to both variety and unity is reflected in India’s pragmatic approach to federalism, and the Indian state’s ability to function depends on this balance.

---

[1] LEXPEEPS, https://lexpeeps.in/is-indian-constitution-federal-in-nature/ , 17-09-23

[2] DRISHTI IAS, https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-editorials/complexity-of-indian-federalism,18-09-23

[3] LEGAL SERVICE INDIA, https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-6617-indian-federal-system-a-critical-analysis.html, 18-09-23

[4] LEGAL SERVICE INDIA, https://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/2245/Quasi-Federal-Nature-of-Indian-Constitution.html, 19-09-23

[5] LEGAL PAATH SHALA, https://legalpaathshala.com/is-indian-constitution-federal-in-nature/, 19-09-23