THE NATIONAL LAW ISTITUTE UNIVERSITY

BHOPAL

TRIMESTER IV

POLITICAL SCIENCE

TOPIC-FEDERALISM IN INDIA

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY
(Dr.) KULDEEP KAUR PANKAJ SINGH
ROLL NO.2019BALLB53

CHAPTERISATION
  INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………….

 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ………………………………….

ACIENT PERIOD………………………………….
BRITIES PERIOD ……………………………….

 ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF FEDERALISM…………………………….

 NATURE OF INDIAN FEDERAL SYSTEM………………………

INDIAN CONSTITUTION - FEDERAL OR UNITARY………………………………………

 DISTINCTIVE FEATURE- CO OPERATIVE FEDERALISM OF INDIA ……

 CONCLUSION …………………………….

 REVIEW OF LITERATURE………………………………………………………..

 BIBLIOGRAPHY ………………………………………………….

INTRODUCTION
“Federalism is the main alternative to empire as a technique of aggregating large areas under
one government. Federalism or the idea of the multi-level governance is now widely
considered to be the best findings principles of the polities around the world. There are
various advantages of the federal system. It enables the constituent units to have the benefit
of the strength in unity while keeping their identity and autonomy in organising their public
sector in accordance with the wishes of the people- “the different advantages of the
magnitude and littleness of the nations” in Tocqueville’s celebrated words. Significantly, the
advantages from the economic angles include the gains from a large common market and
from a political perspective include protection of individual rights and freedom and
promotion of democratic values. However, it is a challenging task to design a federal
constitution that can efficiently serve the cherished goals of federalism and lay the
foundations of a stable federal polity in a given country. The idea of federalism is, in fact, not
a new one. It is as old as Greek-city States. For quite some time, federal system has been in
operation in various forms in different parts of the world but no unique model has emerged
that can suit all countries for all times.

Amaresh Bagchi in his Article “Rethinking Federalism: Overview of Current Debates with
Some Reflections in Indian Context” has asserted that two thirds of the world’s landmass
were governed by imperial edict in the mid-nineteenth century. According to many political
theorists, this same proportion of the world is governed by federal arrangement in the early
twenty-first century. Actually, it is claimed by some theorists that the proportion could be
much higher. Late Daniel Elazar in his writing in 1994

estimated that well over 100 of 180 recognized sovereign states covering some 80 percent of
the world’s population are living within polities that either formally federal or utilize federal
arrangement. Moreover, Elazar’s list of federal countries includes most attractive and stable
democracies of the world in which Switzerland and the United States are two of the oldest
political regimes in the world, as well as Canada, Australia and Germany. Additionally, the
European Union is often said to be an emerging federal system Generally, it is said that
“federalism, serves as a bulwark against tyranny and is essential for creation and maintenance
of democracy in geographically large or ethnically diverse political identities”. It maximizes
the extent to which the political system can reflect the preferences of the individual who live
within it. It produces a political system leading to a higher level of economic efficiency
within society than any other system. According to Elazar, “it is directly ordained by the
Almighty”. A theory of federalism, is a general account of the structural arrangement of the
dual levels of the government, one goes beyond simple description of a particular federal
system, a paired comparison of two or more federal systems, a large analysis that seeks to
formulate workable rules for defining boundaries and providing a convincing rationale for
them one they have been drawn, or a historical analysis that traces changes in the relationship
between central state and constituent states.

“Federalism is commonly understood as a theory of government that uses

power to check power amid opposite and rival interests. Authority is limited, and no single
body exercises supreme control nor has a monopoly over the use of force in society. But the
idea of federalism is rendered trivial when applied only to the coexistence of state and
national governments. Rather federalism offers no less than an enabling basis for the
development of self-organizing and self-governing capabilities under conditions of equal
liberty and justice.”

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The democracy is relevant worthwhile because it is enclosed in a federal structure. While the
majority opinion is represented by the democracy, federalism entertains and links it to the
voice of the minority while imparting an aroma of social justice which guarantees amicable
functioning of the entire system. A great flexibility has been given to the federalism, cultural
and ethnic of the political system of the country and, therefore, the ability to combat stress
through agreements. Federalism regulates the existence of both nationalism and regionalism
because of which it has become the most appropriate institutional way to avoid apprehensions
of cultural subjection by one social group and feeling of frustration among ethnic minorities.
It provides for the coexistence of „centripetal‟ and „centrifugal‟ forces and allows
contradictories of centralization and decentralization, of inclination for unity and diversity,
for fastening both to the nation and the region. Federalism is a method by which these
counteracting groups are equalized and maintained. While political processes are admitted to
perform within sub-national units of the federation, they also interconnect with the national
political process.

ANCIENT PERIOD

The elements of the federal principle were incorporated by the political systems before the
invention of the term „federal‟. “The Israelite political system was probably the first example
in the recorded history of a Union of constituent polities based on a sense of common
nationality with national and tribal political institutions and some division of functions
between the two parties formalized by a written constitution.” There are number of examples
of the evolution of the federal idea in its underdeveloped form in the Greek history.
Permanent leagues of independent states united by a sense of common need “the classic
example in the Achaean League (251-146 B.C), a pro-federal system often erroneously
considered to be the first federal polity”. The indications of the early federations were firstly
removed out by all fascinating Rome, and thereafter, by the emergence of the nation states.
“Most of the period commencing from the sixteenth century and ending with the fourth
quarter of the nineteenth is occupied with the process of national formation.” The rise of
nation-state incited federal solution to the issues of national unification. The growth of
modern imperialism also devoted to the evolution of federalism, as marked by the valuable

works of the pre-revolutionary political theorist of the eighteenth century, like, Montesquieu
and Adam Smith. The term federal is used to characterize the manner of political organisation
which unifies separate politics so as to permit each to maintain vital political integrity. D.C.
Miller (1939) invented the term „federal‟ which is derived from the Latin word „Foedus‟
(covenant) in 1645. By making use of the term „federalism‟ he describes “the system of holy
and enduring covenants between God and man which lay at the foundation of their world
view. It is characterized by the desire to build society on the basis of coordinative rather than
subordinative relationships by the nineteenth century French and German social theorists”. It
is laid down by the ancient Indian polity that empire should not be at the charge of local
autonomy, culture and institutions. Most of the ancient Indian empires were simply loose
federations of a number of feudatory kingdoms which were held together by skilled
personalities for a few decades. Beni Prasad calls the Mauryan empire “feudal-federal type”
in which “the internal autonomy of various regions was respected”. Mookerji also supports
this view when he says that the Mauryan Empire was “recognition of local autonomy at the
expense of the central government.” The priority of this local autonomy is almost similar to
our present idea of a strong centre with full autonomy for the states. In the later Vedic period,
“the Kurupanchalas formed a composite state under a common monarch; the Kshudrakas and
the Malavas formed a confederal union to meet the aggressions of Alexander, the Great. In
the period of Buddha and Mahavir, the Lichhavis formed a confederation once with the
Mallas and later with the Videhas”. However, much one is desired to find federal elements in
federal politics of past whereas, federalism, as we understand it, is of recent origin.
Lowenstein calls the US and Switzerland the oldest federal states.

BRITISH PERIOD

The British East India Company obtained the Royal Charter and thus came to India mostly to
trade, but it remained behind to rule while seeing the political probabilities. The company‟s
business organizations were in Kolkata, Mumbai and Chennai. At the g, all the three
establishments had their respective independent administration without any centralised
control. The enactment of Regulating Act of 1773 by the British Parliament for the purpose
of systematizing company‟s administration in India marked the beginning of centralization.
The Company‟s Charter Act was renewed in 1813, 1833 and 1853. The outcome of First War
of India‟s independence, 1857 led to the passing of the Act of 1858 through which the
administration of India was transferred from the Company to the British Crown. It was
realized after the revolt of 1857 that concentration of all the powers in one common centre
resulting in the weakness of the regions will not be favourable to peace and security of a vast
country like India. So, thereafter, gradual decentralisation began in India The Indian Council
Act, 1861 led to the beginning of the development of local government which can be
regarded as first step on the road to federalism. The idea was to establish local councils all
over the country. Wherever, it was possible, these councils were to be built on the tradition of
the village Panchayats (committee of five senior citizens) and if, in any case, it were not
existed, the councils were to be as close as possible a model of British local government. It is
quite interesting that after a period of ninety years, Mr. Nehru had the same idea of building
Indian local government on Panchayat Raj, only to make the same findings, so that the
present Indian Panchayats are basically a new creation A great excitement was shown for the
idea of elective councils which was just similar to the councils being established in England.
The Congress leaders were most eager to follow the English model as closely as possible
which really formed a background to the 1892 Councils Act. The object of 1892 Act was to
broaden the basis and extend the functions of the Government of India and to provide further
opportunities to the nonofficial and indigenous elements in Indian Society for participating in
the Government’s work. The next important step in constitutional move for India was taken
under the Liberal Government in 1909. Recognition and acceptance was given to the elective
principles under the Minto-Morley Reforms. It was agreed under this Act that there might be
an Indian majority on Provincial Council, but by this time Indian self-consciousness was fully
developed. The Act provided for the first-time separate representation of the Muslim
Community and thus planted the seeds of separatism that ultimately led to the tragic partition
of the country .In 1885, the Indian National Congress was established but it was under the
control of Moderates for a long time. It became more active during the First World War and
thereafter, started its movement for self-government. The British Government, in response to
this demand, made a declaration on August 20, 1917 that the policy of His Majesty‟s
Government was of “increasing association of Indians in every branch of the administration
and the gradual development of self-governing institutions with a view to progressive
realisation of responsible government in British as an integral part of the British Empire.”
Thereafter, on the recommendations of the Joint Report and on the full consideration by a
Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons, the Government of India Act, 1919 was passed.
The provisions of the Act, 1919 were designed to be federal which laid down the foundation
stone for further developments in that direction. “To give fuller effect to the principle of
Provincial self-government, devolution of authority from the centre to the provinces was now
for the first time given a precise and legal form Thus, Federalism moved slowly into the
Indian constitutional system unexpectedly, almost by the backdoor. The Act of 1919
introduced a new system called “Dyarchy” in the provinces in which subjects are classified as
central or provincial. The latter was divided into firstly, transferring subjects administered by
the governor and his Councils of Ministers responsible to the Legislative Council and
secondly, reserving subjects administered by the Governor and his Executive Council.
However, the responsibility of the Government of India, with Governor-General in Council
remained towards the British Parliament (through Great Britain‟s secretary of State for
India). The Central Legislature consisted of the Council of Ministers (six members) and the
Legislative Assembly (144) members. It was a unitary system in which the central legislature
could legislate on any matter.

ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF FEDERALISM

A Constitution will be a Federal Constitution, if it possesses the following characteristics: -

a. Duality of Government:
While in a unitary state there is only one government i.e. National Government or
Central Government. But in a federal state, there are two governments the federal or
the central governments and the government of each constituent's state. This features
clearly differentiates between federation and confederation.
 b. Distribution of powers:
The distribution of powers between the centre and the states is the most important
characteristics, rather the core of any federal system. In reality, the whole federal
system revolves around this basic core of distribution of powers. A federal
constitution thus envisages a demarcation or division of governmental functions and
powers between the centre and the regions.

c. Supremacy of the Constitution:

Supremacy of the Constitution is an essential feature of the federal constitution. The
Constitution of USA is a federal Constitution. Consequently, there is supremacy of
Constitution in USA. Any act of any organ of the government which is against the
Constitution is invalid and of no force. The Legislature, Executive or Judiciary cannot
isolate the Constitution. The Supremacy of the Constitution is necessary for the
establishment and maintenance of Federal Constitution and Federal Government. No
person or governmental authority is above the Constitution.

d. Written and Rigid Constitution:

Actually, it is not necessary for a federal Constitution to be written but in practice it is
always found written, because due to distribution of powers between the central
government and the State governments, an unwritten federal constitution will create
confusion and conflict. Indian Constitution is a written Constitution.

e. Authority of Courts:
In a federal state, the legal supremacy of the constitution is essential to the existence
of a federal system and to ensure this it is necessary to maintain the authority of
courts, which must have final power to interpret the Constitution and guard the
entrenched provision of the Constitution.

NATURE OF INDIAN FEDERAL SYSTEM

There is difference of opinion among the constitutional jurists about the nature of the Indian
constitution. One view is that it is a quasi-federal Constitution and has more Unitary features
than federal features. Article 1(1) of our Constitutions says " India, that is Bharat, shall be a
Union of States." While submitting the Draft Constitution, Dr. Ambedkar, the Chairman of
the Drafting Committee, stated that "although its Constitution may be federal in structure",
the Committee had used the term "Union" because of certain advantages, these advantages,
he explained in the Constituent Assembly, were to indicate two things, viz., (a) that the
Indian federation is not the result of an agreement by an Units, and (b) that the component
units have no freedom to secede from its. The word "Union" does not indicate any particular
type of federation, in as much as it is used also in the Preamble of the Constitution of the
United States- the model of federation; in the Preamble of the British North America Act
(which according to Lord Haldane, did not create a true federation at all); in the Preamble to
the Union of South Africa Act. 1909, which patently set up a unitary Constitution; and even
in the Constitution of U.S.S.R. (1997), which formally acknowledges a right of succession
[ Art. 72] to each Republic, i.e, unit of the Union. We have, therefore, to examine the
provisions of the Constitution itself, apart from the label given to it by its draftsman, to
determine whether it presides a federal system as claimed by Dr. Ambedkar, particularly in
view of the criticisms leveled against its federal claim by some foreign scholars. The
difficulty in any treatment of federalism is that there is no agreed definition of a federal State.
The other difficulty is that it is habitual with the scholars on the subject to start with the
model of the United States, the oldest (1787) of all federal Constitution in the world, and to
exclude any system that conform to that model from the nomenclature of that federation. But
numerous countries in the world have, since 1787, adopted Constitutions having federal
features and, if the strict historical standard of the United States be applied to all these later
Constitutions, few will stand the test of Federalism save perhaps Switzerland and Australia.
Nothings is, however, gained by excluding so may recent Constitutions from the federal
class, for, according to the traditional classification followed by political scientists,
Constitutions are either unitary or federal. If therefore, a Constitution partakes some features
of both types, the only alternative is to analyse those features and to ascertain whether it is
basically unitary or federal, although it may have subsidiary variations. A liberal attitude
towards the questions of federalism is, therefore, inevitable particularly in view of the fact
that recent experiment in the world of Constitution making are departing more and more from
the pure type of either unitary or a federal system. The question whether a State is federal or
unitary is one of degrees and the answer will depend upon how many features it possesses.
INDIAN CONSTITUTION- FEDERAL OR UNITARY

Federal features:

To solve the controversy as the question whether Indian Constitution is federal or unitary, we
have to examine the essential characteristics of a federal Constitution with the Indian
Constitution. Some of the federal features of the Indian Constitution can be summarized as
follows:

1. Existence of Dual Government- There can be no federation unless there are two sets
of governments - one at the centre and the other at regional level. In India, we have
the Government of the Union of India at the Centre and Governments of various
States as regional units of federation. To this extent Indian Constitution possesses
federal element.
2. Distribution of power-Mere existence of central and regional governments does not
make a constitution federal because this can be possible even in a unitary government
where a large country is divided in several regional units for the sake of
administrative convenience. For a federation, distribution of powers between central
government and regional units is essential and this distribution should be such as to
ensure substantial independence to central as well as regional governments. In Indian
Constitution all legislative powers are enumerated in three Lists of the Seventh
Schedule. In respect of matters enumerated the list I, Union has exclusive power to
legislate and in respect of matters enumerated in List II, the States have exclusive
legislative power. List III is concurrent list. In respect of matters enumerated in this
list, both Union and States have power to legislate, The Union and States have
executive powers also on matters in respect of which they have power to legislate.
Thus, the Constitution provides for distribution of powers and justice ensuring
substantial independence to governments of both levels.
3. Written constitution- This is strictly not necessary to constitute a federation but it is
a practical necessity that distribution of powers has to be recorded. We have one of
the largest written constitutions of the world.
4. Supremacy of the Constitution- Distribution of powers will be of no use if the
constitution is not treated as supreme and governments are allowed to violate it. In
 India, any legislative or executive action of Union or State government will be of no
force if it is against the provisions of the Constitution. Constitution is supreme. In
Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v Union of India, the Supreme Court has
held that in India, Constitution not the Parliament, is supreme Constitution is
fundamental and higher law and being so it is the touchstone of limits of powers of
various organs of the State.
5. Independent arbiter of powers- There must be some independent authority to
interpret the constitution and to resolve the disputes between central and regional
governments The authority need not necessarily be the court, but generally courts are
entrusted with this job. Under the Indian Constitution power to interpret the
Constitution rests with the courts and for ensuring independence of courts, the judges
have been given substantial protection in respect of their salaries and tenure of
service. The judges -of the Supreme Court and the High Court’s cannot be removed
from service except in accordance with the provisional of Article 124 (4), nor can
their salaries or emoluments be varied to their disadvantage.
6. Rigid process of amendment- For a federation it is necessary that power to amend
the constitution should not be given exclusively to centre or regional units. Both must
participate in the process of amendment, Under Article 368, certain matters, which
can affect federal structure, cannot be amended by Parliament alone even by special
majority. At least half of the States must also ratify. Thus, all the essential elements of
federal constitution are in principle embodied in our constitution. Besides these, the
Upper House to the centre is elected by State Legislatures and in Presidential
elections, members of both Houses of Parliament as well as of State Assemblies take
part. In spite of all this our constitution has been branded as quasi-federal by Dr K C
Wheare. Some have called it as unitary with certain federal features Granville Austin
in his book "The Indian Constitution — Cornerstone of a Nation" concluded that our
system, if it could be called federal, could be described as "Co-operative federalism",
which implies system with three characteristics: (i) administrative co-operation
between central and regional governments, (ii) partial dependence of the regional
governments upon payments from the central government and, (iii) the use of
conditional grants by central governments for promotion of developments in matters
constitutionally assigned to regions. The direct question whether our Constitution is
federal or unitary was not seriously considered by the Supreme Court except in State
of West Bengal v. Union of India1 , in which it held by majority that Indian
 Constitution is not federal. But the issue involved in the case was narrow one, that is,
whether Union of India could acquire landed property belonging to state or states
could claim immunity because of federal nature of the, Constitution. However, in In
re Under Article143 the Supreme Court recognizes that the Indian Constitution is a
federal Constitution.

Unitary features:

1. Process of Formation- A very weak argument is based on the process of formation of

federation. It is said that process of formation of the Indian Constitution has been just the
reverse. Before the present Constitution was framed, India was governed by the Britishers as
Unitary State. In State of West Bengal v. Union of India2 and Pradeep Jain v. Union of
India , this aspect was given undue emphasis. The process of formation does not affect the
federal nature. There are many federations which came into existence not as a result of a
compact between existing states but as a result of division of existing State. Between Indian
States and former provinces, there has been integration but some bigger Provinces were
divide to form a new State.

2. No separate State Constitutions, single Citizenship- Equally weak arguments are made
on the basis of certain non-essential characteristics which are present in some important
federal Constitutions. For instance, in many federations 3 State have their separate
constitutions and citizenship. In Pradeep Jain v Union of India'5 , this aspect was also
emphasized. In our country provisions regarding organisation of government in States are
incorporated in the Indian Constitution itself. States do not have separate constitutions as
there is no provision for dual citizenship, but these matters are incidents of history of a
particular federation and are not essential for co-ordinate functioning of both the tiers of the
government- Centre and States.

3. Union Control over State Executive. — i. Appointment of Governors- The executive

head of the state, i e, Governor is appointed by the President and holds office during his
pleasure. This by itself does not affect federal system very much, because in almost all
matter, he has to act on the advice of his ministers but his position is liable to be misused by
the Central Government under certain circumstances. In fact, It has been used on several
occasions to dismiss the Ministry of an opposition party in States or to appoint a Chief
Minister who has not majority support in the Legislative Assembly as was done by the
Governor of Jharkhand recently.

ii. Execution of Union laws by State Executive. - The division of executive powers
between the Union and the States is on the basis of division of Legislative powers. This is
provided in Articles 73 (1) and 162, but the division is not like watertight compartments. The
laws made by the Union on concurrent matters will be primarily administered by States
unless Parliament directs otherwise. The executive powers of the State shall, be subject to and
limited by executive powers of the Union.

iii. Delegation of power by the Union- Even in respect of matters in the Union list, Union
may delegate its functions to States. Similarly, under Article 258A, the Governor of a State
may entrust executive functions of State to Union or its officers.

iv. Executive Direction - Article 256 says that the executive power of a state shall be so
exercised as to ensure compliance with the laws made by Parliament and that executive
power of the Union may extend to giving of directions to the states. Article 257 also provides
for executive directions by the Centre as to the manner in which the state executive power is
to be exercised so that exercise of executive power of States should not impede or prejudice
the exercise of the executive power of the Union. If the State fails to carry out directions, the
penalty is provided in Article 365. The President may declare that the government of the
State cannot be carried on in

4.Control over Legislative Powers of State- (i) Legislation by Parliament on State Matters
under Articles 249 and 252- Under Article 249, Parliament can legislate on any matter
enumerated in the State list if Council of States passes a resolution by 2/3d majority of
members present and voting that it is in the national interest. Under Article 252, if two or
more States pass resolutions that a particular matter enumerated in State List be regulated by
Parliament, then Parliament shall be competent agreement. In pass legislation and such
legislation shall be in force in those states or in any other State which adopts it. In fact, these
provisions do not affect federal character of the Indian Union. Legislation under Article 252
is expressly authorized by states themselves and legislation under Article 249 is also
indirectly with the consent of the States, because Council of States consists of the
representatives, of states. Only twelve members are nominated by the President and some
members represent Union territories. Moreover, such legislation is only a temporary measure.
(ii) Implementation of Treaties, Agreements and Conventions- For implementing any treaty,
agreement or convention with any foreign country or decision of an international conference.
Article 253 authorizes Parliament to make Laws for the whole or part of the country. This
provision is necessary. It is the duty of the Union to maintain relations with the foreign
States. If implementation is left at the mercy of the States, many international commitments
would remain unimplemented or would be delayed. Actually this happened in Canada during
nineteen thirties.

5.The Judiciary- (i) Unified Judicial system- United States of America, Australia and some
other federations have double judicial system- federal courts and state courts, but our
constitution provides for unified judicial system like that of Canada. (ii) Appointment of
Judges- Appointments of judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court are made by the
President, who is also the executive head of the Union Government Power of appointment, no
doubt, carries some influence with it but the constitution makers took sufficient precaution
and many more it is the duty of the government to take good stapes for the any state whose
come under the territory of a country.

DISTINCTIVE FEATURE- CO OPERATIVE FEDERALISM OF INDIA

The Constitutional system of India is basically federal, but of course, with striking Unitary
features.

1. There are many distinctive features of the Indian federal system. In United States, there is
dual citizenship. An American is a citizen of the United States and also of the State in which
he lives. In India, there is a dual polity but single citizenship. To quote, " there is only one
citizenship for the whole of India. It is the Indian Citizenship. There is no State citizenship.
Every Indian has the same rights of citizenship, no matter in what State he resides".

2. Every State in the United States has the right to make or amend its own Constitution. The
Federal Government has not the power to change the Constitution of any State. In India, no
State has the power to amend its own Constitution although the Federal Government has the
power to amend the State Constitution under certain circumstances. To quote, " the
Constitution of Union and of the States is single frame from which neither can get out and
within which they must work.
 3.The residuary powers in India are given to the Union Government and the Indian
Parliament can make laws with regard to them. In United States, the residuary powers are
with the States.

4. Rigidity and legalism are considered to be the two evils of a federal polity. A federal
Constitution has to be a written Constitution, which is usually rigid. Moreover, the people in
a federal polity always talk in terms of legality or illegality of a measure, irrespective of its
merits. However, the Indian Constitution have adopted certain methods to avoid the evils of
rigidity and legalism. It has provided a long list of Concurrent subjects. A large number of
provisions have been made which are to remain in force until Parliament provides otherwise
by law. Power has also been given to the Parliament to legislate on matters in the State List
under certain circumstances. This is so when a subject assumes national importance. The
same is the case when an emergency is declared by President. The Centre can exercise
powers within a State with the consent of the State or State concerned. Greater facility is
given for the amendment of the Constitution than that given in foreign countries.

5. The Constitution becomes unitary in times of emergency. To quote, " all federal systems
are placed in a tight mould of federalism. In no circumstances can it change its form and
shape. It can never be unitary. On the other hand, the Indian Constitution can be both Unitary
as well as federal, according to requirement of time and circumstances".

6. The Indian federation maintains unity in all basic matters. To quote Dr. Ambedkar, " The
Federation being a dual polity based on divided authority with separate legislative, executive
and judicial powers for each of the two polities is bound to produce diversities in laws, in
administration and in judicial protection.

7. The Indian Constitution does not set up the States as rivals to one another or to the Union.
Each is intended to work harmoniously in its own sphere without impediment by the other,
with an over-riding power of the Union where it is necessary in the public interest. It has a
nice balance of jurisdictions which has worked out successfully so far and it is hopes that it
will continue to work so in times to come with good sense prevailing in all States.

8. The Supreme Court of India and the High Court form a single integrated judiciary having
jurisdiction over all cases arising under various laws- Union, State, Constitutional, Civil and
Criminal. To eliminate diversity of laws, codes of civil and criminal law are placed in the
Concurrent List. To maintain uniformity in administration, the Constitution provides that
there shall be AllIndia services recruited on all India basis which shall be common to the
Union and States.

CONCLUSION

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, one of the chief architects of the Indian Constitution said: "Our
Constitution would be both Unitary as well as Federal according to the requirements of time
and circumstances. In historical as well as present context, the above statement is fully
correct because: federalism is not static but a dynamic concept", it is always in the process of
evolution and constant adjustments from time to time in the light of the contemporary needs
the demands being made on it. For making Indian Federalism more robust and viable, the
differences between the centre and the state must be sort out so that India may successfully
meet the great-challenges of difference, external and internal -security and socio-economic
development. It is very necessary that neither the federal set-up becomes unitary nor that it
becomes too lose and weak, affecting the unitary and integrity of the nation. As India is a
developing nation, federal government is necessary for it to bring progress. India is a country
with unity in diversity. There are so many states that are unique in their cultures and
traditions and still feel strongly the oneness among them. As each state has its own way of
lifestyle and culture, it is important to follow federal form of government in India. As also the
Constitutional laws of India suit the federal governance, India requires federal ruling to
maintain national integration. Indians are having lot of differences in their language, culture
or lifestyle and hence live as different states. But all Indians feel that they are all one and
belong to only one country. Therefore, India deserves to have Federal Government. It is time
to undertake a study of Indian Federalism with a view to evaluate the trends, frictions and
difficulties which have developed in the area of inter-governmental relations and to seek to
evolve ways and means to meet the challenging task of making the Indian federation a more
robust, strong and workable system so that the country may meet the tasks of self-
improvement and development. The responsibility lies on not only the jurists and policy
framers, but also the citizens of the country to work in a harmonious manner for the
development of the country.
REVIEW OF LITRATURE

 Tittle: Indian federalism

Author: Mahindra prasad singh
Publish year: 2014
The federal structure in India is unique in the sense that it operates more on vertical
(centre-state) plane than on horizontal (state-state) plane making it a centralized
federative polity. The book attempts to introduce and analyse the federal structure as
enunciated in Indian Constitution from the theoretical as well as practical perspectives
and how it has been able to put in place and evolve mechanism to meet the various
and varied aspirations of different regions, communities, and classes. Written in
largely non-technical language, the major strength, of the book is that, besides the
historical perspective, it discusses critical issues like constitutional division of powers,
Union-State administrative relations. 
 Tittle: Dynamic of Indian federalism
Author: Mokbul ali Lasker
Publish year :2015
This book is a detailed overview of the institutional and historical trajectory of Indian
federalism, including both territorial and non-territorial aspects of Indian federalism.
An extensive analysis has been made of the various federal policy measures adopted
by different rulers from time to time, particularly with an emphasis on federalism
under the British colonial rule and the role of princely states in Indian federalism

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Sumit kumar jain, pary politics and centre state relation in india abinav publication
1994.
 Om prakesh, centre state financial relation in india, atlantic publisher and dist, 1994
 Subh nigam singh, centre state relation in india; major irritant and post sarkaria view,
mittal publication,1991
 Kiran pal, tension area in centre stare relation suhrid publication.
 http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/686/Federalism-in-India.html