Union Government Vs Central Government – In the eyes of Indian

Constitution
Many of us, as a citizen of India have come across the question what’s the big difference in mentioning
the government as “Union Government or Central Government”. The debate started very recently after
the emergence of the new state government in Tamil Nadu under the leadership of M K Stalin, Supremo
of DMK, a party meant for Social Justice and State Autonomy to advocate for Self-governance.
Though DMK has played an influential role in the apex government in framing new laws, amendments to
existing laws etc , the general perception in the national political circle about DMK as a regional party
fighting for Tamil Nadu only. Let us take look on our core subject we have taken here as our title apart
from political angle.
Indian Constitution has used the word “Union” , 430 times right from Part I as follows
“Name and territory of the Union.—(1) India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.
1
[(2) The States and the territories thereof shall be as specified in the First Schedule.]
(3) The territory of India shall comprise—
(a) the territories of the States;
2
[(b) the Union territories specified in the First Schedule; and]
(c) such other territories as may be acquired.”
If we go in depth in understanding the articulation of the word “Union” in our constitution, we can
understand how, why the word “Union” is being used and how valid it is even in today’s scenario.
Oppositions and political observers say that the issue of state autonomy raised after seeing a diverged
actions of current apex government in its functioning and policies adopted by claiming to bring a change
in every sector in contrary to what was promised during the elections in 2014.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has earned legitimacy from the people, independent of his constitutional
and institutional power structure, and has built a direct rapport with them. Past experience shows that in
our federal set-up, a Prime Minister with a national image can be more powerful than an individual who is
identified with a region of the country. Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi emerged as strong Prime
Ministers. In this context it appears that with the victory of Mr. Modi, India has reached the stage of a
prime ministerial government.[1]
While addressing the BJP’s National Council meeting on January 26, 2014 Mr.Modi spoke at great length
on the issue of Centre-State relations and stressed the need to give greater autonomy to the States. [2]
Within 15 days of assuming office as Prime Minister, Mr.Modi has met a number of Chief Ministers and
discussed the problems related to their State governments. He also made it clear that he will work to
strengthen the federal structure of the country and has further instructed his office to prioritise issues
raised by the States and with sensitivity.[3]
The various measures initiated by Mr. Modi so far indicate that he is trying to establish an effective
federalism in which national unity is strengthened, and democracy and people’s participation become
more real. In S.R. Bommai vs Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court ruled that the States have an
independent constitutional existence and have as important a role to play in the political, social,
educational and cultural life of the people as the Union does. [4]
A centralized structure of governance in which the leader has a strong control over decision-making
would work best for India. A government headed by a dynamic, efficient and strong Prime Minister who
can wield enormous powers by virtue of his personality, is described as a prime ministerial form of
government.[5]
Modelled after the Westminster system for governing the state, the Union government is mainly
composed of the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary, in which all powers are vested by
the constitution in the prime minister, parliament and the supreme court. The president of India is
the head of state and the commander-in-chief of the Indian Armed Forces whilst the elected prime
minister acts as the head of the executive, and is responsible for running the Union government. The
parliament is bicameral in nature, with the Lok Sabha being the lower house, and the Rajya
Sabha the upper house. The judiciary systematically contains an apex supreme court, 24 high courts, and
several district courts, all inferior to the supreme court.[6]
The basic civil and criminal laws governing the citizens of India are set down in major parliamentary
legislation, such as the civil procedure code, the penal code, and the criminal procedure code.[4] Similar to
the Union government, individual State governments each consist of executive, legislative and judiciary.
The legal system as applicable to the Union and individual State governments is based on the English
Common and Statutory Law. The full name of the country is the Republic of India. India and Bharat are
equally official short names for the Republic of India in the Constitution, and both names appears on legal
banknotes, in treaties and in legal cases. The terms "Union government", "Central government" and
"Bhārat Sarkār" are often used officially and unofficially to refer to the Government of India. [citation
needed]
 The term New Delhi is commonly used as a metonym for the Union government,[citation needed] as the
seat of the government is in New Delhi.[7]
Chapter I of Part V (5) of the Indian Constitution titled “The Union” speaks in the name of “The
Executive” with 22 articles about “The President and Vice-President”. Article 53 meant for “Executive
power of the Union” as follows:
“(1) The executive power of the Union shall be vested in the President
and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance
with this Constitution.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the supreme command of the
Defence Forces of the Union shall be vested in the President and the exercise thereof shall be
regulated by law.
(3) Nothing in this article shall—
(a) be deemed to transfer to the President any functions conferred by any existing law on the
Government of any State or other authority; or
(b) prevent Parliament from conferring by law functions on authorities other than the
President.”[8]
Article 73 clearly states the “Extent of executive power of the Union
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive power of the Union shall extend—
(a) to the matters with respect to which Parliament has power to make laws; and
(b) to the exercise of such rights, authority and jurisdiction as are exercisable by the
Government of India by virtue of any treaty or agreement:
Provided that the executive power referred to in sub-clause (a) shall not, save as expressly
provided in this Constitution or in any law made by Parliament, extend in any State2
*** to matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has also power to make
laws.
(2) Until otherwise provided by Parliament, a State and any officer or authority of a State may,
notwithstanding anything in this article, continue to exercise in matters with respect to which
Parliament has power to make laws for that State such executive power or functions as the State
or
officer or authority thereof could exercise immediately before the commencement of this
[9]
Constitution.

From the above articles it is inferred that the term “Union” repeatedly confirms how the sub-continent’s
territory’s are marked. The same term with no change in its original context even in defining the position,
discharge of duties of Prime Minister, council of ministers, Parliament, its duration and all further articles
thereafter.
Here the term “Union” undoubtedly represents the “Union Government.” ie the council of ministers
headed by the Executive Head. The usage of the “Union” can be more understood by knowing the system
of government. Let’s have a look closer.

Please change
[10]
What is Parliamentary System? : as
“The Union”
 o Familiarity with the system: A system similar to the Parliamentary form has been in existence
in India since the early 1900s and the constitution makers were familiar with this.
o Preference to More Responsibility: The makers preferred British Parliamentary system over
American Presidential system as the former offered more responsibility.
o To avoid Legislative-Executive conflicts: Conflicts between the legislature and the executive
are bound to occur in the presidential system. But India’s infant democracy could not afford to
take the risk of a perpetual conflict between the two organs of the government.
o Nature of Indian Society: India is one of the most heterogeneous States and most complex
plural societies in the world. Hence, the Constitution-makers adopted the parliamentary system as
it offers greater scope for giving representation to various section, interests and regions in the
government.
What is Presidential System? :
o The Presidential system is a form of government in which the president is the chief executive
and is elected by the people.
o The system finds its origin in the American constitution. In this system, all three branches:
executive, legislative, and judiciary – are constitutionally independent of each other, and no
branch can dismiss or dissolve any other. 
o The President is responsible for enforcing laws, the legislature for making them, and the courts
for judging.
 o The President governs with the help of a cabinet or a smaller body called ‘Kitchen Cabinet’,
which consists of non-elected members.
Presidential Vs Parliamentary System:

Parliamentary system Presidential system

Dual executive: The President is head of the State,
while the Prime Minister is head of the government.
Majority party rule: The party which secures
majority seats in the Lok Sabha forms the
government
Political homogeneity: Members of the council of
ministers belong to the same political party, and
share the same political ideology.
Collective responsibility: The ministers are No responsibility: The President and his
responsible to the Parliament for all their acts of secretaries are not responsible to the legislative for
omission and commission.
Fusion of powers: The legislature and executive
are inseparable. The Parliament exercises control
over the ministers. Judiciary exercises control
through the power of judicial review.
Dual membership: The members of executive are
also members of the legislative.
Dissolution of lower house: Executive enjoys the
right to get the legislature dissolved
Single executive: President is both the head of the
State and the head of government.
President and legislators are elected separately for a
fixed term.
Political homogeneity may not exist. President and
legislators can be from different parties.
their acts.
Separation of powers: executive, legislative, and
judiciary are independent of each other and no
branch can dismiss or dissolve any other. 
Single membership: The executive members
neither possess membership nor attend the
legislative sessions.
The President cannot dissolve the lower house

Though Indian Constitution did not mention our system of government is Federal, we can say it as a
Pseudo-Federal System in practice. The Constitution initially provided with two-tier system of
government, the Union Government representing the Union of India and the State Governments. With the
introduction of Panchayat Raj to empower local administrative structure say Panchayats and
Municipalities which made our pseudo-federal system as three-tier.
Part IX of Indian Constitution and its articles under the head “Relations between the Union and the
States” establishes how the legislative relations ie distribution of legislative power, distribution of
revenues, “property , contracts, rights, liabilities, obligations & suits and right to property has to be
observed by both.
Seventh Schedule (Article 246) has itemized 97 functions as the principal portfolios fall under the “Union
List”. Similarly, 66 items listed under the “State List” and later by means amendments to our constitution
few provisions got moved out and the rest of 47 items parked under Concurrent List.
Though several amendments has taken place for various reasons and at various circumstances with the
consent of both Houses of Parliament with final nod by the Executive, ie “The President of Indian Union”
Constitutional provisions are necessary for the success of federalism but these not sufficient. If the federal
system has succeeded so far in India, it is not just by laying constitutional provisions, but it was exercised
by the Union and State Governments. Yes, of course, Union Judiciary played a maiden role whenever the
provisions were used in a critical pollical scenarios. The real success of federalism in India attributed to
the nature of democratic politics in our country. This ensured the sprit of federalism, respect for diversity
and desire for living together became shared ideals in our country.
With all the information discussed here confirms and reconfirms our nation as “India, that is Bharat,
shall be a Union of States” only.