Federal System

Federal System:

Introduction to Federal and Unitary Systems

Federal System- Political scientists classify governments into two broad categories based on the distribution of power between the national and regional levels:

Definition and Core Distinction

Unitary Government: All powers are vested in the national government. Regional governments, if they exist, derive their authority entirely from the national government and remain subordinate to it.

Federal Government: Powers are divided between the national government and regional governments by the Constitution itself. Both operate independently within their respective jurisdictions without hierarchical subordination.

Examples

Terminology in Federal Systems

• National Government: Federal government, Central government, or Union government

• Regional Government: State government or provincial government

• Units of Federation: Called by different names—states (US), cantons (Switzerland), provinces (Canada), republics (Russia)

Comparative Features: Federal vs. Unitary Systems

Formation and Development of Federations

Etymology

The term “federation” derives from the Latin word foedus, meaning “treaty” or “agreement”—reflecting that a federation is a state formed through an agreement among constituent units.

Methods of Formation

1. Integration (Coming Together)

• Multiple weak or economically backward independent states unite to form a strong union

• Example: United States (1787)

2. Disintegration (Holding Together)

• A large unitary state is converted into a federation by granting autonomy to provinces

• Promotes regional interests while maintaining national unity

• Example: Canada (1867)

Major Federations

United States Federation

• First and oldest federation in the world

• Formed in 1787 following American Revolution (1775-83)

• Originally 13 states; now 50 states

• Model federation for studying federal systems

Canadian Federation

• Formed in 1867

• Originally 4 provinces; now 10 provinces

• Relatively old federation

Indian Federal System: Overview

Why Federal System Was Adopted

The framers of the Indian Constitution chose a federal system for two principal reasons:

1. Large Size of the Country: The vast geographical area required decentralized governance

2. Socio-Cultural Diversity: Diverse languages, religions, cultures, and regional identities necessitated a system that could accommodate regional aspirations while maintaining national unity

Key Benefits of Federal System in India

• Ensures efficient governance at multiple levels

• Reconciles national unity with regional autonomy

• Accommodates diversity while maintaining integration

The Term “Union of States”

The Constitution of India does not use the term “federation” or “federation of states.” Instead, Article 1 describes India as a “Union of States”.

According to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, this terminology preference indicates two critical points:

1. Not a Voluntary Agreement: The Indian federation is not the result of an agreement among states (unlike the US). The states did not voluntarily come together to form the Union.

2. No Right of Secession: States have no right to secede from the federation. The federation is a union because it is indestructible.

Canadian Model vs. American Model

The Indian federal system is based on the Canadian model, not the American model:

Federal Features of the Indian Constitution

The Constitution establishes India as a true federation through the following features:

1. Dual Polity

The Constitution creates a dual polity:

• Union at the Centre: Handles matters of national importance (defense, foreign affairs, currency, communication)

• States at the Periphery: Handle matters of regional and local importance (public order, agriculture, health, local government)

Each level possesses sovereign powers within its assigned field.

2. Written Constitution

• The Indian Constitution is not only written but also the longest in the world

• Originally contained: Preamble, 395 Articles (22 Parts), 8 Schedules

• Present form (as of 2013): Preamble, approximately 465 Articles (25 Parts), 12 Schedules

• Specifies structure, organization, powers, and functions of both Centre and states

• Prescribes limits within which both must operate

• Prevents misunderstandings and disagreements

3. Division of Powers

Powers are systematically divided through the Seventh Schedule:

Union List: 100 subjects (originally 97)

• Subjects under exclusive national jurisdiction

• Examples: Defense, foreign affairs, currency, postal services

State List: 61 subjects (originally 66)

• Subjects under state jurisdiction

• Examples: Agriculture, health, local government, public order

Concurrent List: 52 subjects (originally 47)

• Subjects under joint jurisdiction of Centre and states

• Both can legislate on these matters

• In case of conflict, Central law prevails (supremacy of Centre)

Residuary Powers: All subjects not mentioned in the three lists

• Vested with the Centre (different from US system)

• Provides flexibility to accommodate new areas of governance

4. Supremacy of the Constitution

• The Constitution is the supreme law of the land

• All laws enacted by Centre and states must conform to Constitutional provisions

• Non-conforming laws can be declared invalid by Supreme Court or high courts through judicial review

• All government organs operate within limits prescribed by the Constitution

5. Rigid Constitution

• The Constitution cannot be easily amended

• Provisions concerning federal structure (Centre-state relations, judicial organization) require:

  • Special majority in Parliament

  • Approval of half the state legislatures

• This rigidity ensures the maintenance of federal structure and prevents unilateral alteration by the Centre

6. Independent Judiciary

An independent judiciary, headed by the Supreme Court, serves two crucial functions:

1. Protection of Constitutional Supremacy: Through judicial review

2. Settlement of Disputes: Between Centre and states or among states

Measures for Judicial Independence:

• Security of tenure for judges

• Fixed service conditions

• Protection from executive interference

7. Bicameralism

The Constitution provides for a bicameral legislature:

Rajya Sabha (Upper House)

• Represents the states of the Indian Federation

• Even though less powerful, maintains federal equilibrium

• Protects state interests against undue Centre interference

Lok Sabha (Lower House)

• Represents the people of India as a whole

• Primary legislative chamber

Unitary Features of the Indian Constitution

Despite being a federal system, the Indian Constitution incorporates numerous unitary or non-federal features that strengthen the Centre:

1. Strong Centre

The power distribution heavily favors the Centre:

• Union List contains more subjects than State List

• More important subjects are included in Union List

• Centre has overriding authority over Concurrent List

• Residuary powers vested with Centre (unlike US where they go to states)

Result: The Constitution makes the Centre exceptionally strong compared to other federations.

2. States Not Indestructible

Unlike other federations:

• States have no right to territorial integrity

• Parliament can unilaterally change area, boundaries, or name of states

• Only requires simple majority (not special majority)

Characterization: “An indestructible Union of destructible states” (unlike US: “indestructible Union of indestructible states”)

3. Single Constitution

• States cannot frame their own separate Constitution

• Only one Constitution governs both Centre and states

• Both must operate within this single framework

• Exception: Jammu and Kashmir has its own state Constitution

4. Flexibility of Amendment

• Bulk of Constitution can be amended by unilateral Parliamentary action

• Amendments possible by simple or special majority (not always requiring state approval)

• Only Centre can initiate Constitutional amendments (unlike US where states can propose)

5. No Equality of State Representation

In the Rajya Sabha:

• Representation based on population

• Membership varies from 1 to 31 per state

• Violates the federal principle of equal representation

Contrast with US: American Senate has 100 members (2 from each state), ensuring equal representation and safeguarding smaller states.

6. Emergency Provisions

The Constitution stipulates three types of emergencies:

1. National Emergency (Article 352)

2. State Emergency (Article 356)

3. Financial Emergency (Article 360)

Effect During Emergency:

• Central government becomes all-powerful

• States come under total Central control

• Federal structure converts to unitary structure without formal amendment

• Unique to Indian system (not found in other federations)

7. Single Citizenship

Despite dual polity:

• Only Indian Citizenship exists; no separate state citizenship

• All citizens enjoy same rights throughout the country irrespective of state

• Same system as Canada

Contrast with other federations: US, Switzerland, and Australia have dual citizenship (national + state).

8. Integrated Judiciary

• Single judicial system: Supreme Court at apex, state high courts subordinate

• Enforces both Central and state laws through one system

Contrast with US: Double judicial system (federal courts for federal laws, state courts for state laws).

9. All-India Services

• IAS (Indian Administrative Service)

• IPS (Indian Police Service)

• IFS (Indian Forest Service)

Federal Violation:

• Members common to both Centre and states

• Recruited and trained by Centre

• Centre has ultimate control

• Restricts state autonomy

• US has separate civil services for federal and state governments

10. Integrated Audit Machinery

• Comptroller and Auditor-General of India audits both Centre and state accounts

• Appointed and removed by President without consulting states

• Restricts financial autonomy of states

• Different from US where Comptroller-General has no role in state audits

11. Parliament’s Authority Over State List

• States don’t have exclusive control even within their sphere

• Parliament can legislate on State List subjects if Rajya Sabha passes a resolution in national interest

• Legislative competence of Parliament extendable without Constitutional amendment

• Can occur even when no emergency exists

12. Appointment of Governor

• Head of state, appointed by President

• Holds office during President’s pleasure (can be removed at will)

• Acts as agent of Centre

• Centre exercises control through Governor

Contrast with US: States have elected heads.

Similar to Canada: Also has appointed governors.

13. Integrated Election Machinery

• Election Commission conducts elections to both Central and state legislatures

• Constituted by President; states have no say

• Members appointed and removed by President

Contrast with US: Separate election machineries at federal and state levels.

14. Veto Over State Bills

• Governor can reserve certain bills passed by state legislature for Presidential consideration

• President can withhold assent not only initially but also on reconsideration (absolute veto)

• Gives Centre power to nullify state legislation

Contrast with US and Australia: States are autonomous; no such provision exists.

Critical Evaluation of Indian Federalism

The Quasi-Federal Debate

Political scientists and Constitutional experts have challenged the federal character of the Indian Constitution due to its numerous unitary features.

Key Scholarly Perspectives

1. K.C. Wheare’s “Quasi-Federal” Theory

K.C. Wheare described the Indian Constitution as “quasi-federal” (meaning partly federal, partly unitary).

Key Observation: “Indian Union is a unitary state with subsidiary federal features rather than a federal state with subsidiary unitary features.”

Implication: The federal features are secondary; unitary features are primary.

2. K. Santhanam’s Analysis

Two factors increase the unitary bias (centralization tendency):

a) Financial Dominance of Centre

• States depend upon Central grants

• Economic dependence reinforces political subordination

b) Powerful Planning Commission

• Controls developmental processes in states

• Centralizes economic planning

Conclusion: “India has practically functioned as a unitary state though the Union and the states have tried to function formally and legally as a federation.”

3. Alternative Scholarly Views

Paul Appleby: Characterized Indian system as “extremely federal”.

Morris Jones: Termed it “bargaining federalism” (suggesting negotiation between levels).

Ivor Jennings: Described as “federation with a strong centralising tendency”, noting: “The Indian Constitution is mainly federal with unique safeguards for enforcing national unity and growth.”

Alexandrowicz: Called India a case “sui generis” (unique in character)—cannot be neatly classified.

Granville Austin: Termed it “cooperative federalism”.

• Though Centre is strong, state governments are not weak

• States not reduced to mere administrative agencies

• Indian federalism is a “new kind of federation to meet India’s peculiar needs”

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s Constitutional Vision

On Federal Nature:

“The Constitution is a Federal Constitution in as much as it establishes a dual polity. The Union is not a league of states, united in a loose relationship, nor are the states the agencies of the Union, deriving powers from it. Both the Union and the states are created by the Constitution, both derive their respective authority from the Constitution.”

On Constitutional Flexibility:

“Yet the Constitution avoids the tight mould of federalism and could be both unitary as well as federal according to the requirements of time and circumstances.”

On Centralization Concerns:

“A serious complaint is made on the ground that there is too much centralisation and the states have been reduced to municipalities. It is clear that this view is not only an exaggeration but is also founded on a misunderstanding of what exactly the Constitution contrives to do.”

On Centre-State Relations:

“The basic principle of federalism is that the legislative and executive authority is partitioned between the Centre and the states not by any law to be made by the Centre but by the Constitution itself… The states are in no way dependent upon the Centre for their legislative or executive authority. The states and the Centre are co-equal in this matter… It is therefore, wrong to say that the states have been placed under the Centre. The Centre cannot by its own will alter the boundary of this partition.”

Supreme Court’s Position (Bommai Case, 1994)

The Supreme Court, in the landmark Bommai case (1994), definitively characterized federalism as the “basic feature” of the Constitution:

Key Holdings:

1. “Greater power conferred upon the Centre does not mean states are mere appendages”

2. “States have independent constitutional existence; they are not satellites or agents of the Centre”

3. “Within the sphere allotted to them, the states are supreme”

4. “Emergency powers overriding state powers are exceptions; exceptions are not the rule”

5. “Federalism in Indian Constitution is not a matter of administrative convenience, but one of principle—the outcome of our own process and a recognition of ground realities”

Nature of Indian Federalism: A Compromise

Indian federalism represents a compromise between two conflicting considerations:

1. Normal Division of Powers: States enjoy autonomy within their own spheres (federal principle)

2. National Integrity and Strong Union: Need for powerful Central government during exceptional circumstances (unitary principle)

This balance ensures both national unity and regional autonomy.

Federal Spirit in Practice: Working Examples

The following trends demonstrate the federal spirit operating in India:

1. Territorial Disputes Between States

• Example: Maharashtra vs. Karnataka over Belgaum

• Demonstrates state sovereignty and independent interests

2. River Water Sharing Disputes

• Example: Karnataka vs. Tamil Nadu over Cauvery Water

• Shows states asserting independent jurisdictional claims

• Reflects federal principle of territorial sovereignty

3. Emergence of Regional Parties

• Regional parties gaining political power (Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu)

• Reflects regional aspirations and federalism in action

4. Creation of New States

• Fulfilling regional aspirations (Mizoram, Jharkhand, etc.)

• Demonstrates flexible federal structure responsive to ground realities

5. Demands for Financial Grants

• States demand increased Central grants for development

• Reflects interdependence and bargaining within federal structure

6. Assertion of State Autonomy

• States resist undue Centre interference

• Exercise independent judgment on state matters

7. Supreme Court Limitations on Article 356

• Procedural restrictions on President’s Rule in states

• Judicial protection of federalism principle

The Unique Indian Federal Model

The Indian federal system is distinctive and cannot be neatly classified within traditional federal or unitary categories. It represents:

• A conscious blend of federal and unitary features designed for India’s specific context

• A flexible framework that can function as federal or unitary depending on circumstances

• A cooperative arrangement between Centre and states rather than a strictly competitive one

• India’s own model of federalism adapted to suit its size, diversity, and developmental needs

The Constitution successfully reconciles the seemingly contradictory objectives of maintaining strong national government while protecting regional autonomy and accommodating diversity—a balance critical for India’s integrity and progress.

Indian Polity