INDIA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LEGAL EDUCATION AND

RESEARCH, GOA

SUBJECT: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - II

QUESTION- CRITICALLY ANALYSE THE FEDERALISM UNDER THE
INDAN CONSTITUTION

Submitted To Submitted By
Dr. Abhishek Mishra Abhinav Pandey
Associate Professor 2022BA001
IIULER, Goa Semester IV
Introduction: The Concept of Federalism in India

Federalism is a system of governance in which authority is constitutionally divided between a central

governing body and various regional units, such as states or provinces. This division of power allows both
levels of government to operate within their respective jurisdictions while maintaining a degree of
autonomy. The Indian Constitution embodies a unique model of federalism, blending both federal and
unitary characteristics, which has led many scholars to describe it as "quasi-federal.1

This quasi-federal structure in India is not merely an administrative necessity; it is a political and
constitutional choice aimed at managing the nation's vast cultural, linguistic, and regional diversity while
ensuring its unity and stability. In this context, the Indian model of federalism serves as a mechanism for
distributing power, reducing conflicts between different levels of government, and fostering cooperative
governance2.

This analysis will delve into the intricacies of Indian federalism by examining its constitutional foundations,
the distribution of powers between the Union and the states, the role of the judiciary in interpreting and
upholding federal principles, and the various challenges that impact the federal structure. Relevant case laws
that have played a pivotal role in shaping Indian federalism will also be integrated throughout the discussion
to offer a comprehensive understanding.

The Unique Nature of Indian Federalism: A Balancing Act

Indian federalism is distinct from traditional federal systems, like those found in the United States or
Canada, where there is a clear separation of powers between the central government and the states. Instead,
India's federal structure is often described as "quasi-federal" because it combines both federal and unitary
elements, with a considerable degree of centralization in favor of the Union government.

The Concept of Quasi-Federalism in India

Constitutional expert K.C. Wheare was among the first to label India's federal structure as "quasi-federal."
He pointed out that while the Indian Constitution incorporates federal features, such as a division of powers
and the existence of state governments, it also contains provisions that empower the central government to
intervene in state matters under certain conditions. This approach to federalism was designed to ensure a
strong central authority capable of maintaining order and unity in a diverse nation like India.

1
Anubhav Pandey, Federalism under the Indian Constitution, (July 8, 2024), [Link]
2
Is India a Federal or Quasi Federal country- Nature of Indian Federalism, (Apr. 8, 2019), [Link]
or-quasi-federal/.
The Supreme Court, in the landmark case of State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1962),3 affirmed the
idea that India is a "Union of States" with a tendency towards centralization. The ruling emphasized that
although federal principles are present within the Constitution, the ultimate authority lies with the central
government, especially in times of national crisis or emergencies. This decision set the tone for
understanding the quasi-federal nature of India's political framework.

In another significant judgment, S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 4, the Supreme Court ruled that
federalism is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. It stated that the imposition of President's Rule
under Article 356 should be subject to strict judicial scrutiny to prevent its misuse. This ruling was a crucial
step in curbing the arbitrary dismissal of state governments by ensuring that such actions could be
challenged and reviewed in court.

The Indestructible Nature of the Indian Federation

Article 1 of the Indian Constitution explicitly describes the country as a "Union of States." This phrase is not
just a label but a declaration of the indestructible nature of the Indian federation. Unlike in some federal
systems, where constituent units have the option to secede, the states in India do not possess the right to
separate from the Union. This principle ensures that the integrity of the nation remains intact, irrespective of
political dynamics at the state level.5

The Supreme Court elaborated on this concept in the In re Berubari Union (1960)6 case, where it clarified
that while the Indian Constitution embodies federal principles, its underlying structure has a more unitary
character. The Court noted that the Union’s authority takes precedence over state powers in matters of
national significance, thereby affirming the central government's dominant role in the federation.

Division of Powers: Constitutional Provisions and Judicial Interpretations

The Constitution of India meticulously outlines the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and
the states through the Seventh Schedule, which includes three lists: the Union List, the State List, and the
Concurrent List. This division aims to provide a clear framework for governance, ensuring that both levels
of government can function without unnecessary interference from each other.7

Union List, State List, and Concurrent List

1. Union List: This list comprises subjects of national importance, such as defense, foreign affairs,
atomic energy, and railways. Only the central government has the authority to legislate on these

3
State of West Bengal v. Union of India, 1963 AIR 1241, (1962),
4
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India 1994 AIR 1918 (1994)
5
Daniel J Elazar, Religious Diversity and Federalism,53 ISSJ 2001
6
re Berubari Union AIR1960SC845 (1960)
7
Supra 1
 matters. The significance of the Union List was underscored in the Union of India v. H.S. Dhillon
(1971) 8case, where the Supreme Court held that the central government has the power to legislate on
residuary subjects not mentioned in either the State List or the Concurrent List. This decision
reinforced the principle that issues of national importance fall within the exclusive domain of the
Union.
2. State List: The State List includes matters like public health, police, and agriculture, which are
primarily within the legislative jurisdiction of the states. However, there are circumstances where the
central government can intervene. In State of Karnataka v. Union of India (1978)9, the Court
clarified that while states have significant legislative power over these subjects, the Union's influence
can still be felt, particularly when state laws conflict with central policies.
3. Concurrent List: The Concurrent List features subjects like marriage, bankruptcy, and education, on
which both the Union and state governments can legislate. The supremacy of central laws in the
event of a conflict was highlighted in the Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1983) 10
case, where the Supreme Court ruled that central legislation would prevail over state laws when
inconsistencies arise on matters within the Concurrent List.

The Judiciary’s Role in Preserving Indian Federalism

The judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court of India, has played a crucial role in interpreting the federal
structure of the Indian Constitution. By safeguarding the balance of power between the Union and the states,
the judiciary ensures that neither level of government exceeds its constitutional boundaries. 11

The Basic Structure Doctrine and Federalism

The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)12 case marked a turning point in constitutional
jurisprudence in India. The Supreme Court, in this landmark ruling, introduced the basic structure doctrine,
asserting that certain essential features of the Constitution, including federalism, cannot be altered by any
constitutional amendment. This doctrine was a significant check on the Parliament's powers, ensuring that
federal principles could not be undermined through amendments.

Judicial Review of Federal Relations

The Supreme Court has also been vigilant in protecting the federal balance through its interpretation of
13
Article 356. In State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977), the Court ruled that the imposition of
8
Union of India v. H.S. Dhillon (1971) AIR1972SC1061
9
State of Karnataka v. Union of India 1978 AIR 68 (1978)
10
Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar 1983 AIR 1019 (1983)
11
Role Of Indian Judiciary In Promoting Constitutional Values: A Critical Analysis,
[Link]
[Link].
12
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala ,1973 4 SCC 225,(1973)
13
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, 1977 AIR 1361 (1977)
President’s Rule must be based on objective and justifiable grounds, and not solely on political
considerations. This judgment was instrumental in curbing the misuse of Article 356 to dismiss state
governments for political gains.

Similarly, in Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006),14 which dealt with the dissolution of the Bihar
Legislative Assembly, the Supreme Court declared the Governor's recommendation for dissolution
unconstitutional. The judgment reaffirmed the importance of respecting the democratic process and
maintaining the federal balance by safeguarding the autonomy of state legislatures.

Challenges to Indian Federalism: Issues of Centralization

Despite the federal framework provided by the Constitution, there are several challenges that hinder the
effective functioning of Indian federalism. The most significant of these challenges is the centralization of
power, which undermines the autonomy of state governments.

Misuse of Article 356 and Central Dominance

The provision of Article 356, which allows for the imposition of President's Rule in states, has often been
used by the central government as a political tool to destabilize state governments led by opposition parties.
While the S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 15 case established judicial safeguards against such
misuse, the perception of central overreach in state affairs persists.

Financial Centralization

Another major challenge to federalism in India is the lack of financial autonomy for the states. The
implementation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) has centralized fiscal policies to a significant extent,
limiting the states' ability to generate independent revenue. The Union of India v. Mohit Minerals Pvt.
16
Ltd. (2022) case underscored the importance of cooperative federalism in the functioning of the GST
Council, highlighting the need for states to have a say in financial decision-making processes.

Cooperative Federalism as a Solution

The concept of cooperative federalism has emerged as a guiding principle to enhance the relationship
between the central and state governments. It promotes a partnership model where both levels of
government work collaboratively to achieve common goals, reducing friction and fostering unity.

NITI Aayog and the Spirit of Cooperation

14
Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India , 2006 AIR SCW 494 ,(2006),
15
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India , 1994 AIR 1918 ,(1994)
16
Union of India v. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (2022) case
NITI Aayog represents a significant step towards fostering cooperative federalism in India. Unlike its
predecessor, the Planning Commission, which often imposed policies on states, NITI Aayog seeks to engage
states in the decision-making process, encouraging decentralized planning and more collaborative
governance.

The Role of the GST Council

The GST Council serves as a vital example of cooperative federalism in practice, where both the central and
state governments participate in policy formulation and implementation. This collaborative approach ensures
that the interests of states are taken into account when making national fiscal policies, as seen in the
Supreme Court’s endorsement of the GST framework in the Mohit Minerals case.

Evolving Federal Dynamics in Contemporary India

Recent developments, such as the abrogation of Article 37017, which revoked the special status of Jammu
and Kashmir, have sparked debates on the federal structure of India. Critics argue that the unilateral decision
by the central government, without the consent of the state's legislature, violated the principles of federalism
and the spirit of cooperative governance.18

Conclusion: The Path Forward for Indian Federalism

Indian federalism represents a complex interplay between unity and diversity, deeply rooted in the
constitutional fabric of the nation. While it incorporates strong federal features, the Constitution also
empowers the central government to act decisively when national interests are at stake. The judiciary has
played a pivotal role in maintaining this delicate balance, as demonstrated by landmark cases like
Kesavananda Bharati, S. R. Bommai, and Rameshwar Prasad, which have defined and protected the
principles of federalism.

Despite these safeguards, challenges like centralization of powers, financial control, and political misuse of
constitutional provisions continue to test the resilience of Indian federalism. However, the evolving concept
of cooperative federalism offers a promising way to bridge the gap between central authority and state
autonomy, fostering a spirit of collaboration and mutual respect.

The future of Indian federalism depends on the ability to adapt to changing political dynamics while
ensuring that the core principles of state autonomy, democratic governance, and national unity are
preserved.

17
[Link],art,370
18
Changing Dimensions Of Federalism In India: An Appraisal, (Feb. 28, 2020), [Link]
REFERENCES
 Anubhav Pandey, Federalism under the Indian Constitution, (July 8, 2024),
[Link]
 Is India a Federal or Quasi Federal country- Nature of Indian Federalism, (Apr. 8, 2019),
[Link]
 Rameshwar Prasad & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr on 24 January,
2006[Link]
 S.R. Bommai vs Union Of India on 11 March, 1994 [Link]
 Union Of India vs M/S Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. on 19 May, 2022
[Link]
 Changing Dimensions Of Federalism In India: An Appraisal, (Feb. 28, 2020),
[Link]
 Role Of Indian Judiciary In Promoting Constitutional Values: A Critical Analysis,
[Link]
[Link].