Written by: PREKSHA JAYASWAL, AMITY LAW SCHOOL ,NOIDA ,2024-2025
Indian Federalism: A Critical Study in the Light of Limitations on Government Power
ABSTRACT
This paper critically analyses Indian federalism by understanding the extent to which government power has been limited and their implications within the federal framework. The Indian Constitution strikes a balance of power between the Union and state governments, though centralization and political influences strain this very balance much of the times. This paper analyses in how far the mechanisms of judicial review and Article 356 in an attempt to check executive overreach do, on their part, show declines such as reduced state autonomy in financial matters or create regional imbalances. Therefore, to conclude that federalism in India has remained quite resilient, reforms in the strengthening of balance of power would be required to address issues emerging now.
BACKGROUND
Indian federalism divided power between the Centre and the states by the different lists provided in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Although India is a federal system, it has several traits that give it centralizing features, whereby the Centre appears to have controlled great sway, especially through Article 356, which allows states to be placed under President's Rule.
INTRODUCTION: Overview of Indian Federalism
Federalism is the system of government by which power is divided between a central authority and various constituent units, usually states or provinces. Federalism was adopted for India to suit the immense diversity that the country possessed in language, culture, geography, and politics. Thus, Indian federalism, as established by the Constitution of India, constitutes a unique integration of cooperative and competitive elements. While the distinct powers and responsibilities of both Centre and states stand, it is quite unlike the classical models of federalism in the United States, where its strong central authority enables intervention in the affairs of the state under specific circumstances.[1]
OBJECTIVE:
The primary objective of this research paper is to critically discuss how limits on governmental authority shape Indian federalism. Within the scope of this study, the constitutional, financial, and political restraints for both Union and state governments will be considered on how these limitations either maintain or are a disruption of federal balance. The paper seeks to assess the efficiency of these limitations, focusing on issues such as central government overreach, the role of judiciary in limiting the purview of the executive, and the bearing of financial policies such as GST on state autonomy.[2]
IMPORTANCE OF FEDERALISM IN INDIA:
1. In Managing Diversity: India has diversity in its culture, language, ethnicity, and geography. There are 28 states and 8 Union territories in the federation; thus, it demands governance that recognizes local identities while upholding national unity.
2. Division of Powers: States have independent legislations on issues like law and order, health, agriculture, etc. The Union government has powers in matters concerning defence, foreign affairs, and trade, commerce, etc.
3. Reduction of Conflicts and Cooperative Governance: Federalism proves to be a tool that controls regionalism and, thus, subdues inter-state conflicts. Supports cooperative federalism by influencing the cooperation of the Centre and states.
4. Decentralization: Deepens the decentralization of power over local governments. Strengthens the States, thus boosts sense of ownership and responsibility.
5. Checks on Power: The limitation of the centre as well as the state governments provide valuable lessons in the balance of power
Section 1: Understanding the Framework of Indian Federalism:
A. Constitutional Provisions: The Indian Constitution, through its various provisions, has created a federal system of government. Articles 1 to 395 provide the legal framework of Indian federalism, starting from Article 1 wherein India has been declared to be a "Union of States."[3]
Important provisions include:
a) Article 245: Determines the extent of laws made by Parliament and state legislatures, and limits the respective legislative powers.
b) Articles 246 to 254: Define the apportion of legislative power between the Union and states. The Constitution classifies subjects into three lists: the Union List, State List, and Concurrent List (Seventh Schedule).
c) Article 356: Empowers the Union to create President's Rule in the states under certain circumstances, which has been a contentious provision regarding its federal implications.
The Constitution also provides cooperation between the Centre and states, through Article 263, which states that there shall be inter-state councils for promoting inter-state co-operation and for discussions and ascertaining regarding matters of common interest or on which the Governments may differ.
B. Division of Powers: The division of powers between the Centre and the states are provided in the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution. These are classified under three lists:
a) Union List: Includes subjects of national importance, where the legislative power rests with the central authority or the union government. Such items in this list enumerate 100 subjects such as defence, foreign affairs, atomic energy, and telecommunications.
b) State List: These are matters where states have exclusive rights to enact legislation. Total 61 items, including police, public health, agriculture, and local governments. By giving states many matters on which they have exclusive rights to enact legislation, their policies have flexibility that may best suit regional needs and preferences.
c) Concurrent List: Matters on which both the Centre and states can enact legislation. This list encompasses 52 items, such as education, forests, labour welfare, and criminal law. According to Article 254, in the case of conflict over an item present in the Concurrent List, the Union law would prevail over state law.[4]
C. Role of Judiciary: It is really crucial to interpret the Indian Constitution and to protect the federal set-up. One of the most important functions of the judiciary is that it acts as an arbiter in Centre-state disputes. Article 131 grants original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court over disputes between the Union and states or between two or more states.[5]
Ø The great judicial holdings have been defining the lines of Indian federalism:
a) State of West Bengal v. Union of India, 1962: In cases like this, the Supreme Court created that at least as far as matters of national importance are concerned, the Union enjoyed supremacy and hence backed the unitary tilt in Indian federalism.
b) SR Bommai v. Union of India, which finally came in 1994, limited the powers of the Union to impose President's Rule[6] under Article 356, the Supreme Court made clear that such a power cannot be misused, and therefore, is always under judicial review which would check over-reach from the Centre.
c) Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) is the landmark where the doctrine of the "basic structure," of which federalism forms a part, was established. Any amendment or law is available for judicial review if violative of this basic structure.
The judiciary has the role of defences of the federal structure by way of judicial review and interpretation of constitutions so that neither Centre nor the states attempt to overstep their constitutional borders. This role is most crucial for the right balance within the federal system of India.
Section 2: Checks on Government Power in Indian Federalism
A. Constitutional Mechanisms for Limitation:
a) Legislative Limitations: The legislative power is divided among the Union, State, and Concurrent Lists to prevent any one government level holding absolute sway[7]. States have exclusive authority over some subjects while both Centre and states share control over others. In conflict, the Centre law prevails.
b) Executive Limitations: Mechanisms such as the role of governors who are representatives of the Centre in the states and the President, who can intervene under definite conditions, check executive power. In addition, governors can withhold or reserve bills for the President's approval. This adds yet another layer of control over the state governments.
c) Judicial Review: The SC and HCs can declare unconstitutional provisions or infringe the "basic structure." Judicial review prevents the possibility that either the Centre or state governments might operate beyond their constitutional authority.
d) Economic Powers: The financial autonomy of the states is degraded due to dependency on the Centre for all resources. The CST and centrally controlled taxes reduce the independent revenue-generating ability of the states, thus financially empowering the Centre.
B. Political Restrictions
a) Role of the Centre in State Affairs: The Centre can impose Article 356 (President's Rule) and take over the governance of a state in case of constitutional breakdown[8]. Deployment of central forces in states is another instrument of influence, but these measures have been used against the Centre as too immoderate and against state autonomy.
b) Federal Imbalance: The unitary orientation of India's federalism, in which the Centre exercises relatively more powers than it is supposed to do, takes one towards an imbalance. Asymmetric federalism-special provisions for certain states-becomes a characteristic example. And calling for greater autonomy at the state level, particularly where the region has a very distinct identity, remains another challenge in upholding central authority while striving to realize regional aspirations.
Section 3: Case Studies of Federal Conflicts and Judicial Decisions
State-Centre Conflicts: One of the most influential cases for Indian federalism is the case of SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994). In this case, it was held that Article 356 of the Indian Constitution granted extreme discretionary authority upon the Centre in the case of removing a state government; thus, the Supreme Court curtailed this power. The court declared the imposition of President's Rule to be a justiciable act, thus curtailing the arbitrariness with which Centre might use its authority to dissolve state governments. For the second time in legal history, the judgment reaffirmed the federal principle by asserting the independence of state governments, wherein interference from the Centre had to occur under compulsion of the constitution rather than from political necessity. The First time in State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977).
Judicial Precedents: Indian federalism has been greatly influenced by judicial interpretation, especially about settling inter-state and Centre-state matters. For instance:
Fiscal Federalism: In matters of taxation and disbursal of finances, the Supreme Court has accepted the reality that states enjoy fiscal autonomy but do not bypass the Central authority in passing laws for all India taxes, such as GST. The Judgment of the Court has explicitly clarified how the financial powers should be divided between Centre and States, especially regarding compensation and revenue sharing.
Section 4: Issues of Indian Federalism and Power of the Government
Emerging Issues: Indian federalism faces a myriad of issues caused by the rise of regionalism and secessionist pressures. Regional parties generally want more power to protect local interests, cultural identities, and resources, thereby causing constant friction between the Centre and states[9]. States like Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Jammu & Kashmir (before abrogation of Article 370) have witnessed several phases where the regionalism has arisen with a demand for greater autonomy or special status within the union.
Secessionist movements: The federal character of India through secessionist movements in northeast states and Punjab during the 1980s. These movements surfaced due to perceived neglect or exploitation by the central government that resulted in calls for independence or increasing autonomy. The Centre would then respond to the situation either through military intervention as well as negotiation, which has been the tightrope between preserving national unity and regional aspirations.
GST and Financial Federalism: The introduction of GST in 2017 marked a great shift in the financial federalism of India. Though the GST aimed at integrating the whole tax system in the country and abolishing the trade barriers, it significantly limited the financial autonomy of the states. The GST Council, constituted by both the Centre and states, decides tax rates and revenue sharing mechanisms. However, the influence in this constitution is more with the Centre, which disentitles the states from independently raising revenues.
Uniform Civil Code (UCC): The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is one of the most debated issues in Indian politics. The reason is that it affects not only regional but also cultural identities. According to the UCC, there will be just one set of personal laws regarding marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption that would apply to all citizens across regions or religion. Their supporters on the other hand say that it will bring a sense of equality and social integration of Indians. Nevertheless, the opposition argues that by enacting the UCC, there would be an intrusion upon the rich cultural and religious diversity that makes India a pluralistic society.
Section 5: Reforms and the Way Forward
A. Potential Reforms in Federal Architecture:
1. Increased States Financial Autonomy: To deal with increasing reliance by states on the Centre, reform measures should definitely be oriented toward more financial autonomy for the states[10]. One of the important reforms may be the overhaul of the GST structure which can provide to the states greater elbow room to fix domestic-level tax rates for those goods and services most pertinent to the state.
2. Article 356 Revamping: Even though Article 356 has been an intransigent instrument of centre-state relations, reforms could better define the application of Article 356 and make it more answerable to scrutiny.
3. Decentralization and Strengthening Local Governance: Empowering local governance institutions such as Panchayats and Municipalities through a more effective devolution of power and financial resources will reduce over-centralization of decision-making. By strengthening local governance, states may seek redress of regional matters more effectively, making central interventions much less necessary while strengthening the balance of the federal framework.
B. Building Federalism:
1. Power Balancing through Democratic Means: Furthering the cause of federalism calls for the Centre to develop a more cooperative relationship with the states. One way is by establishing some institutional mechanisms such as Inter-State Councils and Zonal Councils to foster dialogue and cooperation on matters of national importance.
2. Strengthening the Role of the Judiciary: This power balance between Centre and states can only be maintained with an institution such as the judiciary. Judicial oversight needs to be always ensured, particularly in instances wherein it appropriates powers reserved for the states, such as an abuse of Article 356 or financial imbalances.
3.Reforms in Asymmetric Federalism: States of India are complex and, hence, so has to be the federal setup of this country. This would suggest that reforms should be such that they can accommodate regional aspirations for unity through asymmetric federalism. That is, while some states may gain special provisions based on their necessities (be it cultural, geographical, or historical factors).
4. Political Decentralization and Federal Parties: Political decentralization with voice and representation of state-level parties in national policymaking can also be more inclusive governance.
Conclusion
Indian federalism has faced severe tests since its integration date, especially as far as the Centre-state balance of power is concerned. Constitutional provisions refer to some very significant constitution-making processes: division of powers and checks to prevent any entity from exercising absolute power[11]. While regionalism and financial dependencies are issues which remain stuck in a groove, the structure of federalism remains the order of the day with judicial supervision of both the Union and states acting under their respective constitutional provisions. Ensuring state autonomy demands a willingness to enforce constitutional provisions-most importantly of Article 356.
[1] Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation (Oxford University Press, 1999)
[2] Durga Das Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India (LexisNexis, 2019
[3] S.P. Singh, "Federalism in India: Challenges and Prospects," Indian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 66, no. 1 (2020)
[4] Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation (Oxford University Press, 1999)
[5] Abhinav Chandrachud, Republic of Rhetoric: Free Speech and the Constitution of India (HarperCollins, 2018)
[6] Durga Das Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India (LexisNexis, 2019)
[7] Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation (Oxford University Press, 1999)
[8] Abhinav Chandrachud, Republic of Rhetoric: Free Speech and the Constitution of India (HarperCollins, 2018)
[9] S.P. Singh, "Federalism in India: Challenges and Prospects," Indian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 66, no. 1 (2020)
[10] Durga Das Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India (LexisNexis, 2019)
[11] Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation (Oxford University Press, 1999)
Comments