1.

Introduction
The concept of federalism has been widely debated and analyzed in political and
constitutional discourse across the world. It refers to a system of governance in
which the powers are divided between a central authority and various constituent
units, typically states or provinces. In a classical federation such as the United
States, this division is clear, constitutionally protected, and both levels of
government operate independently within their respective domains.

India, however, presents a distinct model that cannot be neatly classified as either
federal or unitary. Although the Constitution of India provides for a federal
structure by creating a dual polity – the Union and the States – with a division of
powers between them, it also vests overriding authority in the Centre, especially
during times of emergency. This unique arrangement led constitutional expert
K.C. Wheare to describe India as a “Quasi-Federal” state – one that is federal
in structure but unitary in spirit1.

The framers of the Indian Constitution were influenced by the country’s colonial
history, socio-political diversity, and the need for national unity in a post-partition
scenario. Therefore, while adopting a federal system, they made deliberate
provisions to empower the Centre with greater authority to maintain integrity,
security, and coordinated development.

Quasi-federalism in India is thus not a theoretical flaw but a practical adaptation

– a response to India’s vast geographical expanse, cultural pluralism, and
historical challenges. Over time, this model has both facilitated national
integration and given rise to tensions between the Centre and States, prompting
debates on cooperative federalism and decentralization.

This seminar seeks to explore the origins, features, judicial interpretations, and
recent trends in India's quasi-federal structure, along with a comparative analysis
to understand its unique position in global federal systems.

While these features provide stability and facilitate national governance, they also
raise concerns about the autonomy of States and over-centralization, especially
when seen through the lens of cooperative federalism in a multi-party, coalition-
driven political environment.

This seminar seeks to critically examine the nature and evolution of quasi-
federalism in India. It aims to analyze the constitutional provisions, judicial
interpretations, political practices, and recent reforms that shape Centre-State

1
Granville Aus n
The Indian Cons tu on: Cornerstone of a Na on, Oxford University Press, 1966.
relations. Additionally, the study will draw comparisons with other federal
models like the United States and Canada to highlight the distinctiveness of
India’s federal framework. It will also reflect on the emerging trend of
“cooperative and competitive federalism,” especially in the post-GST and
post-NITI Aayog era, which attempts to recalibrate the balance of power in a
more participative and decentralized manner.

Through this exploration, the seminar will offer insights into whether India
should retain its quasi-federal design or move towards a more balanced federal
structure that ensures better coordination, accountability, and inclusiveness in
governance2.

2. Concept of Federalism
Definition and Meaning

Federalism is a system of government in which powers are constitutionally

divided between a central (national) authority and various constituent units (such
as states or provinces), each of which operates within its own sphere of
competence. The objective of federalism is to accommodate diversity, ensure
autonomy, and promote unity within a single political framework.

The term “federal” is derived from the Latin word foedus, meaning pact or
covenant. This reflects the essence of federalism as a voluntary agreement
between different political units to form a union while retaining their individual
identity and autonomy.

Classical Definitions

 K.C. Wheare, often regarded as the father of modern federal theory,

defines federalism as “the method of dividing powers so that the general
and regional governments are each, within a sphere, co-ordinate and
independent3.”
 A.V. Dicey viewed federalism as a system in which there is a rigid
division of powers and legal supremacy of the constitution, with limited
capacity for centralized interference.

Essential Features of Federalism

2
M.V. Pylee
Cons tu onal Government in India, S. Chand & Co., 2010.
3
K.C. Wheare
Federal Government, Oxford University Press, 1963.
 1. Written Constitution
A federal system is governed by a written constitution that clearly defines
the powers and functions of both the Centre and the States. This ensures
legal certainty and protection against arbitrary interference.
2. Division of Powers
The constitution divides powers between the central and state
governments, often through an enumeration of exclusive, concurrent, and
residuary powers.
3. Supremacy of the Constitution
Both levels of government derive their authority from the constitution,
which is the supreme legal document binding on all.
4. Independent Judiciary
A federal system includes a judiciary capable of interpreting the
constitution and resolving disputes between the Centre and States, thus
acting as a guardian of the federal structure.
5. Dual Government System
There exists a two-tier structure of government – the national (Union)
government and the regional (State) governments – each functioning
independently in their designated spheres.
6. Bicameral Legislature
Most federal systems have a bicameral legislature, where the upper house
represents the constituent units (e.g., the Rajya Sabha in India or the Senate
in the U.S.).
7. Rigidity of the Constitution
The amendment process in a federal system is often rigid, requiring the
participation or consent of both levels of government, thereby preserving
the federal balance.

Types of Federalism4

 Dual Federalism: Also known as “layer cake federalism,” this form keeps
national and state governments strictly separated in their functions and
responsibilities. Example: the early U.S. model.
 Cooperative Federalism: Known as “marble cake federalism,” it
emphasizes collaboration between the Centre and States. Example: post-
New Deal U.S., and contemporary India (post-GST).

4
Subhash Kashyap
Our Constitution, National Book Trust, 2010.
  Competitive Federalism: Involves states competing for resources,
investments, or development projects, often promoted in liberalized
economies.
 Asymmetrical Federalism: Some states or regions enjoy greater
autonomy or special status than others. Example: Canada (Quebec), India
(Jammu & Kashmir before Article 370 abrogation).

Purpose and Importance of Federalism5

 Accommodating Diversity: Federalism is especially suitable for large,

diverse countries where regions may have distinct linguistic, cultural, or
ethnic identities.
 Decentralization of Power: It prevents over-centralization and promotes
local self-governance.
 Checks and Balances: Distributes power to prevent authoritarianism or
misuse of authority by a single government.
 Policy Innovation and Experimentation: States can serve as
"laboratories of democracy" by trying new policies before national
adoption.

Examples of Federal States

 United States of America – Classic federal model with strong states.

 Canada – Federal with significant autonomy for provinces like Quebec.
 Australia – Federal with a strong national government.
 Germany – Cooperative and well-balanced federal structure.
 India – Quasi-federal or asymmetrical federalism with a dominant Centre.

3. Quasi-Federalism: Definition
Meaning of Quasi-Federalism

Quasi-federalism refers to a system of governance that exhibits characteristics

of both a federal and a unitary state. It is not a pure federation, as in the United
States, nor is it a strictly unitary system like the United Kingdom. Instead, it
combines elements of both, resulting in a unique or hybrid model. In a quasi-
federal structure, there is a formal division of powers between the Centre and the
States (or provinces), but the Centre retains significant authority, especially in
matters of national importance or emergency.

5
Alfred Stepan
Federalism and Democracy: Beyond the U.S. Model, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999.
In essence, quasi-federalism reflects a “federal form with a unitary bias.”

Origin of the Term

The term “quasi-federal” was popularized by K.C. Wheare, a renowned

constitutional scholar, who described the Indian Constitution as “quasi-federal”
because it departs from the classical federal model. According to Wheare:

“Indian Constitution is federal in structure but unitary in spirit.”

This description captures the essence of India's federal model — although India
is formally a federation, the Centre wields overriding powers in many respects,
making the system lean toward unitarism.

Why “Quasi” Federal and Not Purely Federal?

India’s Constitution provides for a dual polity and a division of powers (through
Union, State, and Concurrent Lists), which are hallmarks of federalism. However,
several unique provisions tilt the balance of power in favor of the Centre, making
the system “quasi” or semi-federal6:

1. Strong Central Government:

The Centre has extensive powers to intervene in State matters under certain
conditions (e.g., emergency provisions, Article 356, etc.).
2. Single Constitution and Citizenship:
Unlike the United States, where states have their own constitutions and
citizenship, India has a single Constitution and single citizenship for all
citizens.
3. Residuary Powers with Centre:
Under Article 248, the Centre holds residuary legislative powers, unlike in
classic federations where states enjoy such powers.
4. Emergency Provisions (Articles 352, 356, 360):
These articles allow the Union to assume control over the State’s functions
during times of national or constitutional crisis, effectively suspending
federalism.
5. Appointment of Governors by the Centre:
Governors, who act as the heads of State governments, are appointed by

6
The Constitution of India, 1950 (with amendments).

o Articles relevant to federalism: Articles 1, 245-255, 256-263, 268-293, 352-

360, 368, and Seventh Schedule.
 the President (on the advice of the Union Council of Ministers), often
leading to political interference.
6. Inter-State Council and NITI Aayog:
Institutions like these reflect attempts to promote cooperative federalism,
but they also exemplify how the Centre manages coordination and
direction among states7.

Indian Constitutional Provisions Reflecting Quasi-Federalism

 Article 1: Describes India as a “Union of States,” not a federation of states.

 Article 3: Empowers Parliament to alter state boundaries or create new
states without requiring state consent.
 Seventh Schedule (Article 246): Divides powers between Union and
States, but with the Union List given primacy.
 Article 249: Allows Parliament to legislate on State List in the national
interest.

Scholarly Views on Indian Federalism

 K.C. Wheare: “Quasi-federal” – federal in form, unitary in spirit.

 Granville Austin: Describes India’s federalism as “cooperative
federalism” due to the shared objectives between Centre and States.
 M.P. Jain: Argues that India is a “centralized federation.”
 D.D. Basu: Emphasizes that India is a federation with a strong central bias,
especially for reasons of national unity.

Why Quasi-Federalism Was Adopted in India?

1. Historical Context: Post-independence integration of princely states

required a strong Centre to ensure national unity and prevent
fragmentation.
2. Partition and Communal Violence: National stability and security were
top priorities for the Constituent Assembly.
3. Diverse Population: Linguistic, religious, and ethnic differences
necessitated a robust Centre to balance regionalism.
4. Economic Planning: A centralized approach was seen as essential for
coordinated development and poverty alleviation.

7
Reports of the Finance Commission of India (especially recent reports).
Quasi-Federalism vs Federalism8

Pure Federalism (e.g.,

Feature Quasi-Federalism (India)
USA)
Constitution Dual (Centre & States) Single for both
Residuary Powers States Union
Extensive (Articles 352, 356,
Emergency Powers Limited
360)
State Consent for
Mandatory Not required (Article 3)
Alteration
Dual (in some
Citizenship Single
federations)
Governor's Role Largely Ceremonial Agent of the Centre

[Link] of Quasi-Federalism in India

The roots of quasi-federalism in India can be traced through a historical evolution

of constitutional developments, colonial governance structures, and the socio-
political challenges faced during the transition to independence. India's current
federal structure is a product of deliberate constitutional engineering, influenced
by both British colonial rule and the unique needs of a newly independent and
diverse nation9.
1. Colonial Legacy and Pre-Independence Developments
a. Government of India Act, 1935
The most direct precursor to India’s federal structure was the Government of
India Act, 1935, which for the first time introduced a federal system in theory.
It proposed a division of powers between the Centre and the Provinces, with
separate lists for each level of government (Federal, Provincial, and Concurrent).
However, this federalism was highly centralized and never fully implemented in
practice due to the refusal of princely states to join.

8
Reports of the Finance Commission of India (especially recent reports).
9
NITI Aayog Publica ons and Reports
b. British Rule and Centralization10
During colonial rule, India was governed in a highly unitary and centralized
manner, with the British Crown and Viceroy holding absolute powers.
Provincial governments had limited autonomy and were accountable to the
central British authority.
2. Constituent Assembly and the Framing of the Constitution
a. Diverse Views on Federalism
During the Constituent Assembly Debates (1946–1950), there were extensive
discussions on the kind of federalism India should adopt.
Some members, inspired by the American model, advocated for strong state
autonomy.
Others, notably Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Jawaharlal Nehru, and Sardar Vallabhbhai
Patel, emphasized the need for a strong Centre to ensure national unity and
effective governance.

b. Post-Partition Challenges
The trauma of Partition, the integration of over 560 princely states, and fears of
secession or disintegration led to the consensus that India needed a powerful
central government.
This shaped the design of a "Union of States", where states derived their existence
and powers from the Constitution and not from any separate authority.
c. Ambedkar’s Justification
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar described the Indian Constitution as “federal in structure but
unitary in spirit when occasion demands.”
He argued that India had adopted a unique federal system, where both levels of
government were constitutionally independent in their spheres but the Centre was
more powerful for practical reasons.
3. Post-Independence Evolution
a. Centralization in Practice

10
NITI Aayog Publica ons and Reports
Over the decades, India's quasi-federalism has manifested through strong central
control, particularly during emergencies and through the use of Article 356 to
impose President’s Rule in states.
Many critics argue that the Centre has often misused its powers to interfere in
state matters, especially when state governments are controlled by opposition
parties11.
b. Judicial Interpretation
The Supreme Court of India has played a critical role in defining and interpreting
India’s federal structure:
State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1963): Held that Indian states do not
enjoy sovereignty in the way U.S. states do.
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): Strengthened federalism by limiting the
misuse of President’s Rule and affirming federalism as part of the basic structure
doctrine.
c. Recent Trends
In recent years, there have been both centralizing tendencies (e.g., GST,
abrogation of Article 370) and movements toward cooperative federalism (e.g.,
NITI Aayog replacing Planning Commission).
Political and fiscal centralization remains a key concern for state governments.

[Link] of Quasi-Federalism
1. Supremacy of the Central Government

 Dominance of the Union List: The Union List has more subjects
(currently 100) than the State List (61).
 Power during emergencies: In case of national emergency (Article 352),
the Union Parliament gets the power to legislate on all subjects, including
those in the State List.

11
Second Administrative Reforms Commission, Reports on Centre-State relations.
  Example: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the central government took
charge of health and disaster management, which are typically state
subjects.

2. Single Constitution for Union and States

 No separate constitutions for states (except formerly Jammu & Kashmir

under Article 370).
 All states operate under the same constitutional framework, unlike federal
countries like the USA where each state has its own constitution.
 Ensures uniformity but limits state autonomy.

3. Unequal Distribution of Powers

 The Constitution of India disproportionately favors the Centre in

legislative, financial, and administrative matters.
 Article 248 gives residuary powers to the Union Parliament (unlike the
U.S., where they rest with states).
 The Concurrent List (both Centre and State can legislate) further allows
the Centre to override state laws in case of conflict (Article 254)12.

4. Role of Governors as Central Agents

 The Governor, appointed by the President (i.e., Centre), serves as the

executive head of the state.
 Has discretionary powers (e.g., recommending President’s Rule, reserving
bills for the President).
 Often criticized for acting in a partisan manner favoring the central
government.

5. Emergency Provisions Create a Unitary Bias

 During national emergency (Article 352) or President’s Rule (Article

356), the federal structure is effectively suspended.
 The Parliament assumes power to legislate on State subjects, and state
governments can be dismissed.
 Reflects a unitary character in crisis, unlike rigid federations.

6. Financial Dependence of States on Centre

 States have limited sources of revenue and are highly dependent on central
grants and tax devolution through the Finance Commission.
12
R. Sudarshan, “Quasi-Federalism in India: Challenges and Trends,” Economic and Poli cal Weekly, Vol. 54, No.
16, 2019.
  GST regime has further centralized indirect taxation, though it works
through a cooperative structure (GST Council).
 Planning and resource allocation is largely controlled by bodies like the
NITI Aayog.

7. Central Control Over State Legislation13

 Article 200 & 201: The Governor can reserve certain bills for the
President's consideration.
 The President (Centre) can withhold assent or direct changes, giving the
Centre a say in state laws.

8. Flexibility in Constitutional Amendment

 Most constitutional amendments can be passed only by the Union

Parliament with a special majority.
 Only a few provisions (like affecting federal structure) require ratification
by half of the state legislatures (Article 368).

9. Centralized Planning and National Institutions

 India has centralized planning institutions like NITI Aayog (earlier

Planning Commission).
 National commissions, tribunals, and authorities have overriding influence
in areas traditionally under state control (e.g., environment, inter-state river
disputes).

10. Judiciary as the Interpreter and Guardian

 The Supreme Court plays a crucial role in resolving Centre-State disputes

(Article 131).
 It has often interpreted federal principles in favor of maintaining national
unity, but also acted as a protector of state rights (e.g., S.R. Bommai case).

[Link] Provisions Reflecting Quasi-Federalism

1. Article 1 – “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States”

 The term "Union of States" indicates that India is not a result of an agreement
among states, and no state has the right to secede.

13
Balveer Arora, “The Indian Federa on: Central Dominance and State Autonomy,” Journal of Federal Studies,
2017.
  This suggests a strong central authority, unlike a typical federal structure where
states come together voluntarily (e.g., USA).

2. Article 245 to 254 – Distribution of Legislative Powers

 Three Lists in the Seventh Schedule:

o Union List (List I) – Subjects under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Centre
(e.g., defense, foreign affairs).
o State List (List II) – Subjects under state jurisdiction (e.g., police, public
order).
o Concurrent List (List III) – Both can legislate, but Centre’s law prevails in
case of conflict (Article 254).
 Article 246: Clear hierarchy – Union laws prevail over state laws in case of
overlapping.

3. Article 248 – Residuary Powers

 The Parliament has exclusive power to make laws on matters not enumerated in any
of the three lists.
 Contrasts with the U.S. model where residuary powers lie with the states, showing a
central bias.

4. Article 249 – Power of Parliament to Legislate on State List in National

Interest

 If the Rajya Sabha passes a resolution (by a two-thirds majority) declaring it

necessary, the Parliament can make laws on State List subjects.
 Shows that Centre can step into state domains in the name of national interest.

5. Article 250 – Legislation During Emergency

 During a national emergency, Parliament can make laws on any matter in the State
List.
 This provision essentially converts the federal system into a unitary one during
emergencies.

6. Article 252 – Legislation with Consent of States

 If two or more states request, Parliament can legislate on a State List subject for
those states.
 Such laws are binding only on consenting states unless adopted by others.

7. Article 253 – International Agreements

 Parliament can legislate on any subject, including State List items, to implement
international treaties or agreements.
 Illustrates the primacy of national obligations over federal division.

8. Article 254 – Repugnancy Clause

  In the Concurrent List, if there is a conflict between Union and State laws, the Union
law prevails.
 If a state law has been reserved and received the President’s assent, it may prevail
in that state—but Parliament can still override it later.

9. Article 256 and 257 – Control of Union Over States

 States are obligated to ensure that their executive power is exercised in compliance
with the laws made by Parliament.
 The Union can give directions to the states, especially in matters like construction
and maintenance of means of communication14.

10. Article 258 – Power of the Union to Confer Functions on States

 The President may, with consent, entrust Union functions to states.

 Reflects administrative centralization, where the Centre can offload tasks to states
at its discretion.

11. Article 356 – President’s Rule (Failure of Constitutional Machinery in

States)

 If the Governor reports that the government in a state cannot be carried on in

accordance with the Constitution, the President can take over the administration.
 This provision has been controversially used to dismiss state governments, thus
highlighting central control.

12. Article 360 – Financial Emergency

 During a financial emergency, the Centre can give directions to states to reduce
salaries, including those of judges and civil servants.
 Grants sweeping powers to the Union, further eroding federal balance.

13. Article 200 and 201 – Governor’s Role in State Legislation

 The Governor can reserve bills passed by the state legislature for the President’s
consideration.
 The President (Centre) may withhold assent or direct amendments – thereby
controlling the state's legislative domain.

14. Article 368 – Constitutional Amendment Procedure

 Most constitutional amendments can be passed by the Parliament alone with a

special majority.

14
 Granville Austin, “Federalism in India: A Study of Union-State Relations,” Asian
Survey, Vol. 10, No. 6, 1970.


  Only those amendments that affect the federal structure (like Article 1, 73rd/74th
Amendments, etc.) require ratification by at least half the states.

15. Article 312 – Creation of All-India Services

 Parliament can create All-India Services (like IAS, IPS) common to both Union and
States.
 Officers of these services are recruited and controlled primarily by the Centre, but
serve in the states—highlighting bureaucratic centralization15.

[Link] Interpretation of Quasi-Federalism in India

1. State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1962)16

 Issue: The validity of a Central law allowing acquisition of land in West Bengal for
Union purposes.
 Observation:
o The Court held that India is not a federation formed by an agreement
among states.
o Described the Indian Constitution as "not truly federal", emphasizing the
unitary features.
o Stated that the Centre has supremacy over the states.
 Impact: Reinforced the idea that Indian federalism is quasi-federal in nature.

2. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)17

 Issue: Challenge to the validity of constitutional amendments affecting fundamental

rights.
 Doctrine Established: Basic Structure Doctrine.
 Observation:
o Federalism was recognized as part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
o Parliament cannot alter the federal nature even through constitutional
amendments.
 Impact: Provided constitutional protection to federalism, though still within a
quasi-federal model.

3. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)18

 Issue: Misuse of Article 356 (President’s Rule) in dismissing state governments.

 Observation:
o Laid down strict guidelines for invoking Article 356.
o Held that the President’s decision is subject to judicial review.
o Recognized that states are not subordinate entities of the Centre.
 Impact: Significantly strengthened the federal character and autonomy of states.

15
M.P. Singh, “The Changing Dynamics of Indian Federalism,” Indian Journal of Poli cal Science, 2015.
16
1963 AIR 1241
17
1973 INSC 91
18
[1994] 2 SCR 644
 o It moved the judiciary toward protecting cooperative federalism.

4. R. v. Secession of Quebec (Canada, 1998)19 – Comparative Reference

 While not an Indian case, this Canadian Supreme Court decision reinforced the idea
that federalism entails a balance of unity and diversity.
 This comparative insight helps underscore that India's central control is more
pronounced than in Canada or the U.S.

5. UCO Bank v. Dipak Debbarma (2016)20

 Issue: Conflict between a central banking law and state debt relief law.
 Observation: Central law (Recovery of Debts Due to Banks) prevailed due to Article
254.
 Impact: Reinforced the supremacy of central legislation in case of conflict under
the Concurrent List.

6. Rajendra N. Shah v. Union of India (2021)21

 Issue: Challenge to constitutional validity of the 97th Amendment regarding

cooperative societies.
 Observation:
o The Court held that the part of the amendment related to state cooperatives
was invalid without ratification by half of the states under Article 368(2).
 Impact: Reaffirmed the importance of state autonomy and federal procedure in
constitutional amendments.

7. In Re: The Delhi Government Case (GNCTD v. Union of India22, 2018 &
2023)

 Issue: Division of powers between Delhi Government and the Centre.

 Observation:
o The 2018 judgment emphasized that federalism is part of the basic structure
and Delhi’s elected government has authority over day-to-day
administration (except in matters of land, police, and public order).
o The 2023 Constitution Bench reaffirmed that officers serving in the NCT of
Delhi are under the control of the elected government, except in reserved
subjects.
 Impact: Reinforced federal principles even in Union Territories with legislative
assemblies.

19
[1998] 2 SCR 217

20
AIR 2016 SC 5502
21
CIVIL AAPPEAL NO. 2826 /2021
22
[1951] 2 SCR 747
[Link] Themes in Judicial Interpretation
Theme Interpretation by Judiciary
Federalism as a Basic
Cannot be abrogated even by constitutional amendments.
Feature
Article 356 Reviewable Prevents arbitrary dismissal of state governments.
Supremacy of Central Law In Concurrent List conflicts, Centre prevails (Article 254).
States have autonomy, but Centre’s overriding powers are
Limited Autonomy
upheld.
Checks on Centre’s Power Courts have tried to restrict misuse of central authority.

[Link]-Federalism in Practice
 Comparative Perspective on Quasi-Federalism

 1. Basis of Federation

Country Federation Basis Indian Context

India is a "Union of States" created by a single
States voluntarily joined the
USA constitution, not by states’ agreement. States
Union
cannot secede.
Federation formed by
Provinces joined through agreements; some
Canada provinces with some
provinces (Quebec) have special status.
asymmetry
Federation by agreement
Australia Similar to Canada, but stronger federal division.
between colonies
Confederation of cantons
Switzerland Confederation model, highly decentralized.
with strong autonomy

 2. Constitution

Country Constitution Features Indian Context

Rigid Constitution with strong Single Constitution for Union and States
USA
state sovereignty with strong Centre control.
Flexible Constitution with federal- Strong Centre, but provinces have some
Canada
provincial balance autonomy.
Rigid Constitution with clear Clear separation but some central powers
Australia
division of powers during emergencies.
Federal Constitution with broad
Switzerland Cantons have high degree of independence.
cantonal powers

 3. Distribution of Powers
 Aspect USA Canada Australia India
Legislative Federal and Federal and Union, State,
Federal and State
Lists Provincial State Concurrent Lists
Residuary
States Federal Federal Union (Centre)
Powers
Central No explicit Federal laws Federal laws Centre law prevails
Override override power prevail prevail on conflict

 4. Financial Relations

Financial Autonomy of
Country Indian Context
States/Provinces
States have own taxation and financial States depend heavily on Centre’s grants
USA
powers and tax sharing.
Provinces have significant revenue Provinces somewhat dependent but
Canada
powers receive federal transfers.
States have some autonomy, but GST States depend on federal grants; GST
Australia
shared federally Council ensures coordination.
Centralized indirect taxation (GST), States rely on Finance Commission
India
heavy state dependence grants.

 5. Emergency Provisions

Country Emergency Powers Indian Context

Strong emergency powers for Centre
USA Limited federal emergency powers (Article 352, 356, 360) to intervene in
states.
Emergencies managed with Emergency powers allow Centre to
Canada
provincial consent override states.
Some emergency provisions but Similar to Canada but with stronger Centre
Australia
limited role.
Central government can suspend Centre can dismiss states and legislate on
India
federal features during emergencies all subjects.

 6. Role of Governors / Representatives

Country Role of Centre’s Representative Indian Context

Governors appointed by Centre, act as its
USA None (States elect their governors)
agents.
Lieutenant Governors appointed by Similar to India but with less political
Canada
Governor General interference.
Governors appointed by Crown Governors appointed by Centre, often
Australia
(monarch) politically involved.
Governor appointed by President Governors often intervene in state politics,
India
(Centre) seen as Centre’s agents.
 
 7. Constitutional Amendments

Process for Amendments

Country Indian Context
Affecting Federal Structure
Most amendments passed by Parliament alone;
USA Requires approval by 3/4 states
only some require state ratification (Article 368).
Requires provincial consent for Some require approval by provinces; more
Canada
constitutional changes federal involvement.
Australia Requires referendum in states Rigorous amendment process involving states.
Limited state role in most
India Centre dominates amendment process.
amendments

 8. Judiciary’s Role

Country Judiciary as Federal Guardian Indian Context

Supreme Court protects states’ rights Supreme Court balances Centre-State
USA
vigorously relations but generally supports unity.
Canada Courts protect provincial autonomy Courts actively protect federal balance.
Courts maintain federal structure with
Australia Courts ensure division of powers
central tilt.
Supreme Court reviews Centre’s
Courts safeguard states but federalism
India actions; protects federalism to extent
remains quasi with Centre dominance.
possible

[Link] of Indian Quasi-Federalism Compared to

Others
India (Quasi-
Feature USA Canada Australia
Federal)
Unitary
Agreement
Federation Origin Agreement/Asymmetrical Agreement Constitution,
of States
Union of States
Constitutional Flexible but
Rigid Flexible Rigid
Rigidity Centre-dominant
Strong Centre,
Distribution of Clear and Moderate
Moderate central tilt limited state
Powers equal central tilt
autonomy
Financial
High Moderate Moderate Low to Moderate
Autonomy
Emergency Strong Centre
Limited Moderate Moderate
Powers control
 India (Quasi-
Feature USA Canada Australia
Federal)
Central Governor
Representative None Lieutenant Governor Governor appointed by
Role Centre
Amendment States have States Mostly Centre-
Provinces involved
Power big role involved controlled
Judicial Strong Protects federalism
Strong provincial rights Balanced
Protection states’ rights but Centre favore

[Link] Trends in Quasi-Federalism in India

1. Shift from Centralization to Cooperative Federalism

 Early years (1950s-70s):

o Strong emphasis on central control to maintain national unity.
o Frequent use of Article 356 to dismiss state governments.
o Centre dominated financial resources and policymaking.
 Recent decades:
o Move towards cooperative federalism, promoting Centre-State collaboration.
o Creation of forums like the GST Council and NITI Aayog to facilitate joint
decision-making.
o Increased use of consultative mechanisms in policy formulation.

2. Greater Financial Autonomy for States

 Finance Commission Recommendations:

o Successive Finance Commissions have sought to increase states’ share of
central taxes.
o Introduction of performance-based grants to incentivize states.
 Goods and Services Tax (GST):
o Shifted indirect taxes to a single, uniform tax system.
o GST Council includes states and Centre, representing a cooperative model of
fiscal federalism.
 Challenges:
o States still reliant on Centre for grants.
o Some states argue for greater fiscal autonomy.

3. Judicial Protection of Federalism

 Courts have increasingly protected states’ rights by:

o Imposing strict checks on misuse of Article 356 (S.R. Bommai case).
o Interpreting Centre’s powers narrowly during emergency situations.
o Emphasizing federalism as part of the basic structure doctrine (Kesavananda
Bharati).
 The judiciary balances Centre-State tensions by adjudicating disputes.
4. Political Factors and Regional Assertion

 Rise of regional parties and coalition governments at the Centre since the 1990s
has:
o Increased negotiations and bargaining between Centre and States.
o Enhanced states’ bargaining power in policy and resource allocation.
 Some states have demanded greater autonomy or special status (e.g., Telangana,
demands in the Northeast).

5. Asymmetrical Federalism and Special Provisions

 Some states have special constitutional provisions recognizing their unique identity:
o Former Article 370 for Jammu & Kashmir (revoked in 2019).
o Article 371 provisions for states like Nagaland, Mizoram, and others.
 These provisions allow asymmetry but also raise questions about uniformity.

6. Administrative Reforms and Bureaucratic Decentralization

 Efforts to decentralize administration:

o Greater state control over All India Services postings in certain areas.
o Increased recruitment and training of state-level bureaucrats.
 Nonetheless, bureaucracy often remains a link between Centre and States,
sometimes perceived as central control 23.

7. Impact of Globalization and International Obligations

 Central government’s role in international treaties affects states:

o Parliament can legislate on state subjects to fulfill international obligations
(Article 253).
o Increasing importance of coordination between Centre and States in areas like
environment, trade, and security24.

[Link]

 India’s federal system is unique and complex, often described as quasi-federal due to
its blend of federal and unitary features. Unlike classical federations such as the USA
or Canada, India was not formed by the coming together of independent states but
was constituted as a “Union of States” under a single sovereign constitution. This
origin shapes much of its quasi-federal character.
 The Indian Constitution reflects this duality by allocating powers between the Centre
and States through distinct legislative lists, yet it simultaneously empowers the Centre
with overriding authority in critical areas such as emergencies, legislation on state
subjects, financial control, and administration through centrally appointed Governors.
This structural arrangement has enabled India to maintain national unity and
integrity in a vast, diverse, and pluralistic society.

23
John Kincaid, American Federalism: Compe on and Coopera on, 2011.
24
Ronald L. Wa s, Comparing Federal Systems, 3rd Edi on, 2008.
  However, this centralizing tendency has often led to tensions and conflicts in Centre-
State relations, especially when political parties ruling the Centre and States differ.
Over time, the judiciary has played a pivotal role in safeguarding the federal spirit,
particularly through landmark judgments that curtail misuse of central powers (e.g.,
Article 356) and protect states’ autonomy within the constitutional framework.
 The practice of Indian federalism has also evolved significantly. Recent decades have
witnessed a marked shift from central domination to cooperative federalism,
exemplified by collaborative mechanisms like the GST Council and the NITI Aayog,
which encourage dialogue and consensus-building between the Centre and States.
Financial reforms, judicial activism, and political decentralization have further
empowered states, although financial dependence on the Centre remains a key
challenge.
 India’s federalism is also characterized by asymmetry, granting special provisions
and autonomy to certain states to accommodate regional diversity. This flexibility has
been essential for managing the country’s complex social, cultural, and political
landscape but continues to raise debates over uniformity and equality25.
 In conclusion, India’s quasi-federal system is a dynamic and evolving framework
that balances the imperatives of unity and diversity. It reflects the Indian ethos of
accommodating plurality within an integrated constitutional structure. While the
strong Centre retains significant powers, ongoing trends toward cooperation, judicial
checks, and political negotiation continue to shape and enrich India’s federal
democracy. Understanding this nuanced quasi-federalism is crucial to appreciating
how India manages its vast heterogeneity while preserving national cohesion.

25
Daniel J. Elazar, Federal Systems of the World, 2nd Edi on, 1994.