THE NATURE OF INDIAN FEDERALISM: A DISTINCTIVE MODEL OF GOVERNANCE

This article is written by Palak Anand of BA LLB of 3^rd Sem of JIMS EMTC , Greater Noida, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

ABSTRACT

The federal structure of India, as enshrined in its Constitution, is a unique blend of dual governance that amalgamates elements of both federalism and unitary systems. This paper examines the intricate nature of Indian federalism, its constitutional underpinnings, and its operational dynamics, emphasizing its asymmetry and adaptability. Drawing comparisons with classical federal systems, such as the United States, this research draws attention to the distinctiveness of Indian federalism, focusing on its evolution, challenges, and relevance in a diverse and populous nation. The study discusses the critical role of the judiciary in maintaining the federal balance, the impact of economic policies on intergovernmental relations, and the political dynamics that influence the Union-State relationship. It goes on to discuss the implications of asymmetric federalism, which allows special provisions for certain States and regions, thus leading to addressing regional aspirations, but at the same time providing unique governance challenges. This paper aims to give a comprehensive view of Indian federalism by looking into the constitutional design, practical implementation, and current transformations as the response to socio-political and economic realities. Through this analysis, the research highlights the importance of federalism in maintaining unity in diversity, equitable development, and cooperative governance for India. By situating Indian federalism within a global comparative framework, the paper attempts to enrich contemporary discourse on the subject by providing insights into how federal structures can evolve to meet complex governance needs in pluralistic societies.

Keywords

Indian federalism, asymmetrical federalism, Constitution of India, unity and diversity, governance, centralization, regionalism, constitutional framework.

INTRODUCTION

Federalism refers to a governance model in which a central authority and regional units share power, and each operates under its constitutionally established field. It ensures unity with the dignity of diversity and, hence, is an excellent mechanism for huge heterogeneous nations. Indian federalism is different from traditional ones like in the United States or Canada, which owe to the unique socio-political context of its coming into existence. The framers of the Indian Constitution had in mind a federal form suited to the vastness of India’s diversity and the experience of colonial subjugation, communal divisions, and regional disparities.  Although the Indian model is essentially federal, it contains crucial unitary features and hence the scholars have characterized it as “quasi-federal” as advanced by K.C. Wheare. The main motivation was the need for a strong central government that would tackle challenges such as regionalism, linguistic and cultural differences, and economic inequality. The federalism of India is operated upon a dual government setup that divides the powers of Union and States, as it has been defined in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. However, on the other hand, it holds emergency provisions, residuary powers resting with the Union, and the central role in state reorganization provide the Union with huge power dominance. Moreover, it is an asymmetrical Indian federalism that has some special provisions and autonomy differences in certain States according to regional needs. Indian federalism has faced challenges such as demands for greater autonomy, regional disparities, and socio-political conflicts over the decades. However, at the same time, it has evolved through cooperative and competitive dynamics between the Union and States, showing resilience and flexibility.

This paper delves into the constitutional framework, unique characteristics, and operational dynamics of Indian federalism while addressing its challenges and comparing it with classical federal systems. Understanding this distinctive model is crucial for appreciating its role in sustaining India’s unity amidst unparalleled diversity.

HISTORY OF INDIAN FEDERALISM AND PRE- INDEPENDENCE CONCEPT

Federalism in India has deep roots that draw from the country’s colonial past, cultural diversity, and socio-political complexities. The federal form, as of today, developed gradually from historical events and ultimately the Indian Constitution, which came into effect in 1950.

Concept of Federalism Before Independence

The Need for Decentralization: The British Colonial Rule

During British rule, the governance of India oscillated between centralization and decentralization. The British initially maintained a unitary structure, with the Governor-General wielding supreme authority. However, the vastness of India and its regional diversity necessitated some decentralization to maintain administrative efficiency.

• Government of India Act, 1919 (Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms):

This Act was the initial step toward a semblance of federal governance by introducing the system of dyarchy in provinces. Certain subjects, such as law and order, were kept with the British, while others, like education and public health, were transferred to Indian ministers responsible to provincial legislatures. Though the system was limited in scope, it laid the foundation for the federal principles by recognizing the role of regional governments.[1]

• Government of India Act, 1935:

The biggest pre-independence step to federalism was the Government of India Act, 1935. It proposed three levels of government: a central government Federation consisting of British India and Princely States and two lower tier governments that is Provincial and Local governments. However, the envisioned federation never came about, largely because Princely States were reluctant to join but the act did establish a system of provincial autonomy through which the provinces had authority legislative and executive in defined spheres.[2]

• Federal vision after the War and Indian leadership:

Self-rule demands accelerated in World War II. The Indian leadership was pushing forward a form of governance which recognized regional diversities while holding onto the integrity of the nation. The Indian National Congress, as well as other political parties, opted for federalism as the approach toward accommodating pluralism in India. Decentralization and local governments were key, according to Mahatma Gandhi and others.

CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK OF INDIAN FEDERALISM

The Indian Constitution provides the structural and operational framework for federal governance, balancing the autonomy of States with the authority of the Union. While embodying many federal principles, the Constitution also incorporates strong unitary features, reflecting India’s unique socio-political realities and the framers’ intent to maintain national unity. Division of Powers: The Constitution delineates legislative powers between the Union and State governments through the Seventh Schedule, which comprises three lists—Union, State, and Concurrent. The Union List grants Parliament exclusive authority over subjects of national importance, such as defence and foreign affairs, while the State List reserves areas like police and public health for State legislatures. The Concurrent List allows both levels to legislate on matters like education and forests, with Union law prevailing in case of conflict.[3] Residuary Powers: Unlike classical federations where residual powers are often with the States, the Indian Constitution vests them in the Union, empowering it to legislate on unenumerated subjects.[4] Written and Partly Rigid Constitution: India’s written Constitution is partly rigid and partly flexible. Amendments to federal provisions, such as the division of powers, require special procedures, often involving both Parliament and State legislatures.[5] Independent Judiciary: The Supreme Court of India serves as the final arbiter in disputes between the Union and States, safeguarding the constitutional balance.[6] Unitary Bias: Provisions like the President’s rule (Article 356), emergency powers (Articles 352 and 360), and the Union’s role in appointing Governors signify a unitary tilt. Additionally, the Parliament can reorganize State boundaries without requiring State consent (Article 3).

This framework, marked by its blend of federal and unitary features, ensures flexibility and adaptability. It addresses India’s diverse needs while empowering the Union to act decisively in crises, underscoring its “quasi-federal” nature.

ASYMMETRICAL FEDERALISM IN INDIA

Asymmetrical federalism is defined as a system of governance whereby various constituent units of a federation have different levels of autonomy and powers. In India, asymmetry is one of the basic features of its federal arrangement, which allows the Union to accommodate the linguistic, cultural, and regional diversity of the country. This flexibility has been very important for maintaining unity while addressing specific needs of different regions. Special Provisions for Some States: Articles 370 (now abrogated) and 371 of the Indian Constitution are some of the examples of asymmetry. Article 370 was special autonomy for Jammu and Kashmir, including its own Constitution and limited Union intervention in legislative matters. Other States, such as Nagaland (Article 371A) and Mizoram (Article 371G), have special provisions recognising their unique cultural and social practices, such as customary laws and local governance structures.[7] Union Territories and Scheduled Areas: Union Territories (UTs) are directly administered by the Union Government, with varying degrees of local governance. Delhi and Puducherry have legislatures with limited powers, while others, like Chandigarh, are fully under Union control. Scheduled Areas under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules provide autonomy to tribal regions, allowing self-governance and the protection of traditional practices.[8] Creation and Reorganization of States: Article 3 of the Constitution grants Parliament the power to create new States or alter the boundaries of existing ones without State consent. This central authority in reorganizing territories indicates that Indian federalism is indeed asymmetric, with regional aspirations dealt with through pragmatic adjustments.[9] Effect of Asymmetry: Asymmetrical federalism has allowed India to make room for its diverse population, balancing regional autonomy with national integrity. Yet, it has also created tension, where some States perceive unequal treatment or demand greater autonomy. Article 370 abrogation demonstrates the dynamic and contentious nature of asymmetry in Indian federalism. This model is an adaptation of the Indian system so that the governance reflects its diverse socio-political realities.

ROLE OF JUDICIARY

The judiciary in India plays a crucial role in maintaining the balance of power between the Union and States, interpreting the constitutional framework of federalism, and safeguarding the distribution of powers enshrined in the Constitution. As India’s federal structure evolves, the judiciary has been central in resolving disputes between the Union and States, ensuring that federalism remains a living system that can respond to contemporary challenges. Through judicial review, the Indian judiciary has significantly contributed to defining the scope and limits of federalism in the country. One of the key features of Indian federalism is the power of judicial review over laws and resolution of conflicts between the Union and States. This power ensures that the federal structure remains intact and that the provisions of the Constitution are followed by all the organs of the state. The judiciary, especially in regard to the Constitution’s interpretation involving the Seventh Schedule (which shows the division of powers between the Union and States), has played a crucial role in settling controversies about legislative competence and executive authority.

The judiciary often serves as the final arbiter in disputes between the Union and States, particularly in cases where there is a conflict over legislative powers. The courts have been called upon to interpret the scope of power vested in the Union and the States, especially when it comes to matters enumerated in the Union List, the State List, and the Concurrent List. The basic structure doctrine, established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973),[10] has been crucial in safeguarding the integrity of Indian federalism. Though the Constitution permits amendments through Article 368, the Supreme Court has held that certain elements of the Constitution, including federalism, cannot be altered by Parliament through constitutional amendments. This doctrine has provided the judiciary with the power to safeguard the fundamental features of the Constitution, such as the federal nature. Durga Das Basu holds that basic structure doctrine provides the judiciary with the authority to strike down any amendment of the Constitution which results in an upsetting of the federal balance or a damage to the basic features of the Constitution.[11] Through this principle, the Court has ensured that even as political or legislative shifts occur, the core principles of federalism remain protected.

The third area of involvement of the judiciary in Indian federalism is through the protection of minority and regional rights. Here, the judiciary has ensured that the dominance of the central government does not overpower the regional aspirations. For example, in the case of M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India (1979), [12]the Court decided that linguistic and cultural autonomy of States need to be protected. The judgment served to establish the principle that Indian federalism needs to be an instrument of responding to the varying regions, though national integration remains. Third, the judiciary played a significant role in redressing regional imbalances and ensuring that the federal structure ensures fair development. In the decisions, the Court always calls for holistic governance and the need to balance nationalizing policies with the element of regional autonomy. Brij Kishore Sharma has pointed out that the judiciary’s interpretation of the Constitution often focuses on achieving a fair distribution of power that accounts for the complex socio-political realities of India.[13]

With time, judicial activism has been a vehicle for shaping the evolution of Indian federalism. Inherently, the Supreme Court would interpret provisions of the Constitution to suit the imperatives in dynamics of Indian politics. For instance, in Union of India v. State of Kerala (2000)[14], the Court ruled that the Union government could legislate on matters in the Concurrent List, even if it had an impact on regional concerns. This ruling, while reiterating the Union’s supremacy, also pointed out the role of the judiciary to ensure that such power is wielded responsibly and justly. In the case of Union of India v. State of Tamil Nadu (2012),[15]the Supreme Court reiterated the fact that the Union, despite having greater legislative power, would have to approach States in a collaborative manner so as to address regional needs and grievances. This balanced approach reflects the changes in the evolving role of the judiciary in federal principles and respecting the changing demands in a federal system.

The judiciary of India acts as the guardian of the federal framework of the Constitution. Through judicial review, the Court ensures that the power distribution between the Union and States is respected and upheld. In this context, the role of the judiciary is essential as it plays an important role in dealing with disputes between the Union and the States, upholding the doctrine of basic structure, vindicating rights at the regional level, and in spreading cooperative federalism. As the political and legal landscape continues to evolve, the judiciary’s role in safeguarding federalism will remain central in maintaining the balance between regional autonomy and national unity.

EVOLUTION AND CHALLENGES OF INDIAN FEDERALISM

Evolution of Indian Federalism

Indian federalism has seen massive evolution since its inception through a sequence of historical events, the play of political dynamics, and socio-economic changes.

Post-Independence Consolidation: In 1947, the Indian Union was able to integrate over 500 princely states that laid the base of the federal system. It adopted the Constitution in 1950, which strengthened the central government in the face of new-born challenges such as communal tension and economic underdevelopment. Linguistic Reorganization: A great step in federalism, States Reorganization Act in 1956, reconstituted States on linguistic lines. This has helped to satisfy regional aspirations of various sections while keeping the integration at national level intact.[16] Economic Liberalization: Post-1991 economic reforms changed federal dynamics; the States would vie for investments, leading the course for cooperative and competitive federalism. Coalition Politics: The period of centre coalition Governments (1989–2014) saw more regional representation and more important States in Centre decision-making. Judicial Interpretation: Some landmark judgments, such as the S.R. Bommai case (1994), helped the federal idea by curbing the misuse of Article 356 (President’s Rule).

Challenges in Indian Federalism

Indian Federalism, though adaptable is still beset with issues:

1. Centralization of Power: Critics argue that the Union’s dominance, especially in financial matters and emergency provisions, undermines the autonomy of States. The implementation of centrally designed schemes often sidelines regional priorities.[17] Regional Disparities: Uneven economic development among States exacerbates regional inequalities, fueling demands for greater autonomy and resource control.[18] Demands for Autonomy and Secession: Movements in regions like Kashmir, Punjab, and the North-East raise questions about how diverse aspirations can be accommodated within the federal framework.[19]
2. Inter-State Disputes: Disputes over water sharing (e.g., Cauvery dispute) and resource allocation strain inter-State relations. Role of Governors: Governors, appointed by the Union, are seen as instruments of central control, which generates tension between the Union and States. Political Polarization: Divergent political ideologies between the Union and State governments can hinder cooperative governance, affecting policymaking and implementation.

Indian federalism has been able to survive a diverse democracy because of its ability to adapt and evolve. However, these challenges need to be addressed so that it remains relevant and effective.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSES OF INDIAN FEDERALISM

The distinctness of Indian federalism in its structural and functional attributes is aptly established by juxtaposition with other classical federal systems, notably the United States and Canada. On the one hand, in theory, India operates a federal model, whereas in its socio-political and historical circumstances, it follows an amalgamation of elements, both federal and unitary. Thus, the comparative analysis with the United States and Canadian systems can focus on highlighting the variations as well as similarities.[20]

 1. Division of Powers

More rigid divisions of powers between the central and regional governments exist in classical federal systems like those in the United States and Canada. The U.S. Constitution strictly enumerates the powers of the federal government, with all reserved to the states if they are not delegated to it. In like manner, the Canadian Constitution establishes very clear jurisdictions for the federal and provincial governments.

On the other hand, the Indian Constitution provides for more flexible division of powers. Although it defines clearly the Union List, State List, and Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule, the areas of concurrent concern are dominated by the Union government. Furthermore, residuary powers lie with the Union, in contrast to the U.S. pattern where residuary powers remain with the states. This centralization is more pronounced in India, as the Union has broader authority to legislate on matters not enumerated in the Constitution.

2. Emergency Provisions

Under these provisions of the Indian Constitution (Articles 352, 356, and 360), the central government can exercise authority over State governments under a declared national emergency or breakdown in constitutional machinery or when there is financial emergency. Such a provision allows for Union authority not available in states such as in the U.S. or Canada, where the federal government cannot directly intervene to control states or provinces when there is an emergency unless the circumstances are extreme.

In the U.S., the federal system remains largely intact even during times of national crises. In Canada, while the federal government has certain emergency powers, these are far less intrusive than India’s, where the President can dissolve State governments and impose direct rule through Article 356.

3. Role of the Judiciary

The Indian judiciary plays a more integral role in maintaining the balance of power between the Union and States. The Supreme Court of India is considered the highest authority for interpretation of the Constitution and has authority to dispose of disputes between the Union and the States. It also guards the federal structure by striking down constitutionally invalid legislations coming from the parliament.

In comparison, the United States Supreme Court also is the highest court in matters of the federal issues but, of course, state courts’ independence is more distinct. The United States have their own judicial systems which can, on occasion, assume the role of a federal court when their jurisdictions allow it. In the Canadian system, it works in a dual court where federal and provincial matters exist.

4. Distribution of Fiscal Powers

Fiscal powers and financial autonomy in India are more centralized than in the U.S. or Canada. In India, the Union government controls most of the tax revenues, and States are dependent on grants-in-aid from the centre. The Finance Commission reinforces this centralized fiscal structure by recommending the distribution of funds between the Union and States.

In the U.S. and Canada, although the central governments collect major taxes (such as income taxes), state governments also have significant control over taxation, and their financial autonomy is more pronounced. For example, U.S. states have the power to levy state income taxes and sales taxes independently of federal policies. Similarly, Canadian provinces have considerable fiscal powers, including the authority to collect sales taxes and levy income taxes.

5. Asymmetry

Indian federalism is distinguished by its asymmetry. Article 370 of the Indian Constitution has been abrogated recently, but its earlier version granted special status to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, while the North-Eastern States enjoy some special provisions and have greater autonomy than the other States. Union Territories are another form of such asymmetry, as they are governed directly by the Union Government.

In the U.S. and Canada, federalism is symmetrical; that is, each state or province has the same powers and responsibilities as others. There is no provision for granting special autonomy to specific regions, except for the recognition of indigenous or native rights in certain cases, such as Native American tribes in the U.S. or First Nations in Canada.

6. Political Landscape

The political structure in India allows for a greater degree of regional political influence, with coalition politics often leading to a more decentralized decision-making process. In the U.S., while states play an important role in national politics, political power is more concentrated in the federal government due to the two-party system and strong federal representation in Congress. Similarly, in Canada, the federal government and provincial governments tend to maintain a clearer division of powers, with each level of government pursuing its interests relatively independently.

Indian federalism differs significantly from the U.S. and Canadian models in several aspects. Though sharing some fundamental principles of federalism, such as division of powers and the presence of a judiciary to settle disputes, the Indian model embodies more centralized authority and asymmetrical provisions that are tailored to suit the diverse needs of the country. These centralizing tendencies, emergency provisions, and financial dependence of States on the Union are illustrations of the hybrid nature of Indian federalism. Yet this is India’s system, however different, has proved adaptable and resilient enough to maintain unity in a heterogeneous and often divided society.

CONCLUSION

Indian federalism is a complex, dynamic system that brings together federal principles with strong unitary features that reflect the vast socio-political landscape of the country. The drafters of the Indian Constitution, being conscious of India’s immense diversity, were able to come up with a framework that could reconcile regional autonomy and national unity. The Constitution provides the country with a federal structure with distribution of power between the Union and the States but grants ample powers to the Union so that the nation is presented as a unified entity. The asymmetry present in the system—special provisions to some States, the role of Union Territories, and central control over matters of national importance—is what makes Indian federalism different from the traditional classical models of federal systems such as the United States or Canada. Indian federalism has evolved through time under the influence of various historical events, political development, and legal interpretations of constitutional provisions. Over time, it has addressed issues like regionalism, linguistic diversity, and economic disparities successfully, although challenges still persist. Asymmetry, centralization of power, and the tension between regional demands for autonomy and the need for national unity continue to test the robustness of the federal structure. In addition, the relationship between the Union and the States is dynamic and influenced by the changing political landscape and judicial rulings.[21] Indian federalism is not in the traditional mold , yet it has survived and continues to survive as a viable and functioning system of government. The dynamic character of the federalism allows the governance of India’s pluralistic society effectively to strike the right balance between local autonomy and the imperative of national integration.

The future of Indian federalism will depend on how it addresses emerging challenges such as economic inequalities, demands for greater regional autonomy, and the balancing of power between the Union and States, ensuring that it remains a viable system for governance in a diverse democracy. Building on this foundation, the strength of Indian federalism lies in its ability to adapt and evolve while maintaining the balance between unity and diversity. The institutional framework supporting cooperative federalism fosters collaboration between the Union and State governments, which is one of the factors contributing to its resilience. Mechanisms such as the Inter-State Council, Finance Commission, and NITI Aayog provide avenues for dialogue and negotiation where States can voice their grievances and participate in the policy-making process. The judiciary has also played an important role in shaping the federal structure. Cases such as S.R. Bommai v. Union of India reiterated the basic structure doctrine, which ensured that federalism remains an integral part of India’s constitutional ethos. The judiciary’s role in resolving disputes over the distribution of powers and resources has reinforced the federal framework, ensuring that conflicts do not escalate into irreparable crises. At the same time, political dynamics have significantly influenced federal governance.

The rise of regional parties and coalition governments at the centre has shifted the balance of power, giving States a stronger voice in national politics. This has led to a much more decentralized approach to governance. States have been actively playing a role in implementing national policies and programs. However, political polarization and differing ideologies between the Union and the States sometimes hinder cooperative governance, which requires robust mechanisms to maintain harmony. Emerging challenges include inter-State disputes over water resources, demands for a reorganization of States, and the need for a more equitable distribution of fiscal resources, thereby testing the federal structure. These issues become pertinent to rededicate efforts to the cooperative and competitive federalism, where States not only collaborate with the Union but also compete constructively in achieving developmental goals. Indian federalism has a future only if it is inclusive and regional aspirations are fostered while strengthening national cohesion. Addressing socio-economic disparities, ensuring resource allocation, and nurturing democratic values will ensure that the federal system remains a model of governance for a diverse democracy. The dynamic interplay between centralization and decentralization, regional autonomy, and national unity will define the next phase of Indian federalism’s evolution, ensuring it remains robust and responsive to the changing needs of the nation.

REFERENCES

1. Article 246, Constitution of India, 1950 .
2. Dr. J.N Pandey Constitutional Law of India.
3. Basu, Durga Das. Introduction to the Constitution of India. LexisNexis, 23rd Edition, 2018.
4. Pylee, M.V. India’s Constitution. S. Chand Publishing, 17th Edition, 2017.
5. Chandrachud, Abhinav. Republic of Rhetoric: Free Speech and the Constitution of India. Penguin Random House India, 2017.
6. Jain, M.P. Indian Constitutional Law. LexisNexis, 8th Edition, 2018.
7. Sharma, Brij Kishore. Introduction to the Constitution of India. PHI Learning, 7th Edition, 2017.
8. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461.
9. K.C. Wheare, Federal Government, 4th ed. (Oxford University Press, 1963).
10. Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation (Oxford University Press, 1966).
11. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918.
12. Sarkaria Commission Report, Government of India, 1988.
13. Economic Survey of India, 2022-23.
14. States Reorganization Act, 1956.
15. K.C. Wheare, Federal Government, 4th ed. (Oxford University Press, 1963).

---

[1] Government of India Act, 1919

[2] Government of India Act, 1935

[3] Article 246, Constitution of India, 1950

[4] Article 368, Constitution of India, 1950

[5] Article 248, Constitution of India., 1950

[6] Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461.

[7] Articles 370 and 371, Constitution of India, 1950

[8] Article 239, Constitution of India, 1950

[9] Article 3, Constitution of India, 1950

[10] Ibid (6)

[11] Basu, Durga Das. Introduction to the Constitution of India. LexisNexis, 23rd Edition, 2018.

[12] M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India (1979)

[13] Sharma, Brij Kishore. Introduction to the Constitution of India. PHI Learning, 7th Edition, 2017.

[14] Union of India v. State of Kerala (2000)

[15] Union of India v. State of Tamil Nadu (2012)

[16] States Reorganization Act, 1956.

[17] Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation

[18] Sarkaria Commission Report, 1988.

[19] Economic Survey of India, 2022-23

[20] K.C. Wheare, Federal Government , 4th ed. (Oxford University Press, 1963)

[21] S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.