CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

Unity in Diversity has always been considered as the benchmark of Indian Society which has
embraced diversity in terms of caste, culture, customs, cuisine and clothing. The Indian
Constitution is designed into federal structure where both Centre and States have power to
impose taxes.1 Federalism’s importance is similar to natural law when it comes to defining
justice and natural rights. The meaning of federalism has greatly shifted over thousands of
years and the foundation has somewhat been shadowed due to political shifts, which began in
the mid-19th century, federalism has grown as a factor in shaping political behaviour.2

The distribution of powers between the centre and states in the legislative and executive
fields, as stipulated in the Constitution is clearly delimited in their scope. At the same time,
the Constitution includes mechanisms for facilitating cooperation between the centre and the
states. These include the establishment of All India Services, the creation of a Joint Public
Service Commission for two or more states, and the existence of an integrated judicial
system.3

India and Canada were both historically British colonies, which later grew up to be mature
democracies, and the similarities between the two "long last cousins", have been an area of
interest for a long time. Both the countries adopt federalism. n India, the basic structure
doctrine is a "stability device" that prevents the arbitrary and mala fide use of the
constitutionally established amendment procedure. However, in Canada, the unwritten
principles operate as a "flexibility device" to amend the constitution without using the
cumbersome amendment procedure. This can be seen when one examines the contrast
between Quebec Secession Reference and the Kesavananda Bharati. In the former, the
Supreme Court of Canada made an addition to the constitution by adding the "secession
clause", while in Kesavananda Bharati, India's Apex Court arrived at the basic structure
doctrine to hold amendments that deride the basic structure as unconstitutional. This would

1
Mohammed Farhan C & Gruleen Kaur, Cooperative Federalism and the Role of GST Council, Manupatra
Articles, Mar 10, 2021, [Link]
GST-Council.

2
Niyati Trivedi, Federalism in India v USA: a Comparative Study, Jus Corpus Law Journal, Federalism in India v
USA: a Comparative Study

3
[Link]
constitutional-law-separation-of-powers-226151
allow the Canadian Parliament to amend the constitution in a way adverse to the
fedral features.4

India is described as a “union” although its constitution is federal in structure. On 4

“The Drafting Committee wanted to make it clear that though India was to be a federation,
the federation was not the result of an agreement by the states to join in a federation and that
the federation not being the result of an agreement no state has the right to secede from it.
The federation is a union because it is indestructible.”

The issue of Centre-state relations in India has been a topic of much debate and discussion
among scholars and policy-makers in recent times. There has been a growing concern about
the erosion of federalism in India, with the central government allegedly encroaching on the
powers and autonomy of the state governments. This has resulted in tensions and conflicts
between the Centre and the states, particularly with regards to finance and administration.
The central government has been accused of undermining the constitutional framework that
governs Centre-state relations, by using its powers to override the decisions of the state
governments. For instance, the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) and the
Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) were both controversial moves by the central
government, with the former being viewed as a violation of state autonomy and the latter as
discriminatory against certain groups. These actions have raised questions about the nature of
federalism in India, and the extent to which the states are able to exercise their constitutional
rights and responsibilities.

The impact of these developments on federalism in India has been significant. The weakening
of the federal structure has resulted in a concentration of power in the hands of the central
government, at the expense of the states. This has led to a sense of resentment and frustration
among the state governments, who feel that their voices are not being heard or their concerns
addressed. It has also created a sense of disunity and division, as the states become more
isolated from one another and from the central government. Moreover, the erosion of

4
[Link]
supreme-court-of-india-rule-of-law-federalism-separation-of-power-democracy-202473?infinitescroll=1
federalism has implications for the principles of democracy, diversity, and decentralization
that underpin the Indian Constitution. These principles are essential for the functioning of a
democratic and pluralistic society, and their erosion could have far-reaching consequences for
India's political and social fabric.

The Supreme Court heard a suit [THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA v. UNION OF INDIA
AND ORS | Original Suit No. 1/2021] filed by the State of Meghalaya and Sikkim against the
decision to ban their state lotteries in other states. The context of the suit is that as per Section
5 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act 1998, the Central Government authorised State
Governments to prohibit the sale of tickets of a lottery organised, conducted or promoted by
another State. The State of Meghalaya, submitting that the regulation of lotteries organised by
other states was not a State subject, but fell within the domain of the Central government,
thus sought to be granted permission to sell lotteries in other States. The State of Sikkim also
supported the stand of Meghalaya.

Fiscal Federalism is another form of federalism which exist parallelly with the existing
system. The term “fiscal federalism” was introduced by the German-born, American
economist Richard Musgrave in 1959. Wallace E. Oakes, in 1999, defined it as, “Fiscal
Federalism is concerned with understanding which functions and instruments are best
centralised and which are best placed in the sphere of decentralised levels of government.
This concept applies to all forms of government: unitary, federal and confederal” (Oates,
1999[1])

Indian polity has evolved beyond recognition. When the Constitution of India was drawn up,
the interdependence among states, fostered by technology and migration had not gathered
pace. The autonomy of states in a pre-globalised era is vastly different from that found in an
era where both migration and technology erode the boundaries of states unperceptively. Not
undermining the importance of global value chains (GVCs), the time has come to develop
and foster the Indian value chain. Products, processes and services commenced in one state
could involve several states before it reaches the final consumer.

National priorities and notable policy initiatives like Swachh Bharat, the New Education
Policy, Ayushman Bharat and Swachh Jal through Jal Jeevan Mission constitute an integral
part of the changing dynamics and nature of responsibilities between the centre and the states.
The issues of National Priority transcend boundaries as they are designed to address the basic
tenets of growth multipliers, benefitting every segment of society and addressing welfare
tenets on health, housing and employment as core national priorities.