Project report on Federalism in India: A critical study

Submitted by RASHMITA NANDA

+3 IIIrd year
Class roll number : BA19-036
Exam roll number: POL-20-016

Under the supervision of Dr. ASISH KUMAR JENA

Assistant professor in Political Science

N. C. Autonomous College, Jajpur

To the Department of Political Science,

Narasingh Choudhury Autonomous College, Jajpur

755001

2021-22 session
***
 CERTIFICATE
Dr. Asish Kumar Jena
Asst. Professor in Political Science
N. C. Autonomous College, Jajpur
I certify that Rashmita Nanda bearing roll number BA 19-036 has prepared

the project on Federalism in India: A critical study under my guidance and supervision.

This project study is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for

Bachelors degree in Arts in Political Science Hons to the best of my knowledge.
No part of this project has formed on the basis of award of any degree or
fellowship previously. It is a genuine and original research work of the student.
She has carried out the work at the Department of Political Science, N.C.
Autonomous College, Utkal University.

2
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I shall be ungrateful if I do not express my deep sense of gratitude to
my Supervisor Dr. Asish Kumar Jena, Assistant Professor, Department of
Political Science, N. C. Autonomous College. He spent much of his precious time
to elucidate the complex point of the project. He gave me all sorts of help,
suggestions, information and also academic support. His enthusiastic support and
assistance have given a systematic way to me in the preparation of my project. I
sincerely acknowledge the help extended by Dr. T N Pati, HoD, Department of
Political science, N.C. Autonomous College who has been kind enough to
provide many useful information, suggestions and academic support and other
associate professors including the most helping Dr. Anita Behuria and Miss
Debashree Ray of Department of Political Science, N.C. Autonomous College.
Without their kind cooperation it would be impossible for me to prepare my
project.
I got indirect help from the Assistant Librarian and Staff of the Library, N.
C. Autonomous I am indebted to my parents and friends who inspired me and
extended their hands of cooperation to me in various ways. I have tried my best
to complete my research work as beautifully as possible. How far I am successful
will be judged by the scholars in this field.

3
 DECLARATION
I Rashmita Nanda a student of final degree Arts of N. C.
Autonomous College, Jajpur do hereby declare that this project submitted by me
to N.C. Autonomous College, Jajpur in partial fulfilment of the requirement for
the final degree is entirely of my own. The references used in the project study
have been duly acknowledged by me. This project is neither being submitted to
any other University or college not published at any point of time before it. Any
mistake in this project study is entirely of my own.

Signature of the candidate

4
 CONTENTS
Chapter Subject Page
No. No.

I 1.1 Introduction 6
1.2 Statement of the Problem 7
1.3 Objectives of the study 7
1.4 Methodology 1.5 7
Review of literature 8
1.6 Conclusion 8

II 2.1 Theoretical framework 9

2.2 Federalism in India: A Historical Overview 11
14
2.3 Federalism under the Indian Constitution
2.4 Nature of Indian federalism: Cooperative and
17
competitive

III 3.1 Issues and challenges to federal polity in 19

contemporary India
21
3.2 Study teams on Centre states relations in India

3.3 The federal process: Phase of development since 26

independence
29
3.4 An analysis of the working of Federalism in India

IV Conclusion 34

5
 References 35

Chapter
1.1 Introduction:

Differences in race, language, culture, ethnicity, religion, or civilization are not

the necessary foundations of the state, but in the modern world they have tended
to become so. These differences in fact pose serious challenge to the modern
nation states and make the functioning of the union or federation of states
extremely difficult. Overwhelming majority of the nation-states in the world is
facing the challenge of significant internal cleavages based on ethnicity,
language, race, religion, or such other communal groups, India is no exception.
Within a nation-state there are also significant regional variations and disparities
in terms of social and economic status of different territorial and non-territorial
communities. All these have far-reaching consequences for the social and
political processes for the modern nation-states. Most of the federal countries of
the world are today de facto faced with complex issues of sub-national identities.

State builders and political reformers frequently seek a federally organized

political system; but the moment a federal state (or union) is formed or founded
there emerges a dilemma regarding maintenance of a politically strong federal
state (or union) and maintenance of political power and authorities within the
constituent units at the same time. It has been argued that while federalism may
turn out to destabilize and weaken the political basis of a strong federal union
various decentralizing measures can in fact play important role in sustaining a
unitary political system intact and at the same time promote federal principles

6
within the unitary system. is a multicultural society inhabited by people of almost
all the religions of the world speaking different languages, residing in different
topographical areas with uneven distribution of resources with less conflict
among themselves. Thus India best exemplifies the idea of unity in diversity. This
makes the adoption of a federation more of a necessity than of a choice. The
framers of the constitution of India have reluctantly preferred a union on India
than a federation. Federalism in India is a historical advancement. The Federal
configuration under the present constitution and its tangible operations can be
grasped only on the broad canvas of its long expedition. This project showcases
Federalism in India in a twofold modus: The history of Federalism in India and
the Federal Scheme under the present-day Constitution of India.

1.2 Statement of the problem:

In the Indian federal system emphasis is heavily tilted towards centralization of

authority and powers where the states merely act as a cog in the wheel. If India
claims to be a Unitary system of government, then the fragmentation of the Indian
union into smaller fractions based on regional and linguistic diversity will be a
contradiction of the former. Thus it can be said that India is an indestructible
union of destructible states contrary to the notion of indestructible union of
indestructible states prevailing in the USA. The demand for more state autonomy
has become the trend of the day. Thus this project seeks to analyze the nature and
causes of indestructibility of the Indian states.

1.3 Objectives of the study:

The unique federal features of India emanates unique problems peculiar to it.
Thus this requires a deeper analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the federal
system of contemporary India. Even after constituting several committees and
higher level discussion bodies, it couldn't prevent the reorganization of states into

7
smaller units. This interested me to study and research more on the defects of our
system and figure out constructive solutions.

1.4 Methodology:

My research work is completely based on indirect observation. I took the help of

my most loved professors, several books and previously done research work, that
gave me an insight into what are the defects and what I need to concentrate on
while conducting the study. I have done a lot of research work on this topic. I
have gone through several books and journals like JSTOR, EPW, and books of
several eminent thinkers on Federalism that includes Ivor Jennings, K C Wheare,
Paul Appleby, Morris Jones, et all. The bibliography of my resources is attached
at the end of this project.

1.5 Review of literature:

This project work is based on an analysis of federalism in India. Before making

this project I have gone through various research projects previously done and
several books by eminent scholars. From this study I figured out that most of the
research works provide a just discussion on the federal structure of India. The
ideas of scholars on federalism in India are alien to India. The analytical study
on Federalism in India has been completely ignored. If any such testament exists
those have not been discussed properly and have not been crystallized yet. Thus
this project seeks to analyse and discuss the various aspects of Federalism in India
from different points of view.

1.6 Conclusion:

Commenting on the political system of India one can remark it as an

amalgamation of a federal and unitary state system. The most important feature
of the federal system adopted by the Indian Constitution is the principle that

8
relations between the States and the center would be based on cooperation. The
Indian model of federalism may be one of the most interesting typologies in the
world, characterized as it is by a paradox, that of being a “centralized federalism.”

Chapter II: Federalism in Global Perspective

2.1 Theoretical framework

Confederal or federal government is not an entirely new phenomenon
either in India or in the world at large. The earliest mention of the idea of
confederal or federal government can be found in the Vedic and Buddhist texts
and in the Biblical texts in West Asia although the concrete example of the
establishment of a federal government originates with the USA constitution.
What is a federation ?
The term ‘federation’ is derived from a Latin word foedus which means
‘treaty’ or ‘agreement’. Thus, a federation is a new state (political system) which
is formed through a treaty or an agreement between the various units. Political
Scientists have classified governments as unitary and federal on the basis of the
nature of relations between the national/ central government and the
regional/state government. Federalism as a form of government means a political
system with at least two sets of governments, one at the centre and the other at
the level of states. It is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in
which the power to govern is shared between the union and state governments.
This division of power is constitutional and both operate in their respective
jurisdictions independently. If we compare Britain, France, Japan, China, Italy,
Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Spain and so on have the unitary model of
government while the US, Switzerland, Australia, Canada, Russia, Brazil,
Argentina and so on have the federal model of government. In a federal model,
the national government is known as the Federal government or the Central

9
government or the Union government and the regional government is known as
the state government or the provincial government. The units of a federation are
known by various names like states (as in US) or cantons (as in Switzerland) or
provinces (as in Canada) or republics (as in Russia).

Types of Federation
Federations are classified into Centri-petal and Centri-fugal on the basis of
the way they are formed i.e. way of integration or disintegration.
❖ Coming Together Federation/Centri petal – In this type, independent states
come together to form a larger unit. Here, states enjoy more autonomy as
compared to the holding together kind of federation. Example: USA,
Australia, Switzerland.
❖ Holding Together Federation/Centri fugal– In this type, powers are shared
between various constituent parts to accommodate the diversity in the
whole entity. Here, powers are generally tilted towards the central
authority. Example: India, Spain, Belgium.
In the first case, a number of militarily weak or economically backward states
(independent) come together to form a big and a strong union, as for example, the
US. In the second case, a big unitary state is converted into a federation by
granting autonomy to the provinces to promote regional interest (for example,
Canada). The US is the first and the oldest federation in the world. It was formed
in 1787 following the American Revolution (1775–83). It comprises 50 states
(originally 13 states) and is taken as the model of federation. The Canadian
Federation, comprising 10 provinces (originally 4 provinces) is also quite old–
formed in 1867. USSR was one of the world’s superpowers, but after 1989 it
simply broke up into several independent countries. One of the major reasons for
its break up was the excessive centralisation and concentration of power, and the
domination of Russia over other regions with independent languages and cultures

10
of their own e.g. Uzbekistan. Some other countries like Czechoslovakia,
Yugoslavia, and Pakistan also had to face a division of the country. Canada came
very close to a break up between the English–speaking and the French-speaking
regions of that country.

2.2 Federalism in India: A Historical Overview

Federalism is nothing new to India. Though India doesn’t explicitly

declares herself to be a federation she is none less than the most powerful
federations of the world including USA and Canada. It tracks it’s origin to the
ancient period. The 6th–5th centuries BCE is often regarded as a major turning
point in early Indian history; during this period India's first large cities arose after
the demise of the Indus Valley Civilization. The institutionalisation of
Mahajanapadas was a remarkable feature of federal administration in India. The
Mahajanapadas were sixteen kingdoms or oligarchic republics that existed in
ancient India from the sixth to fourth centuries BCE during the second
urbanisation period. Kautilya's treatise on politics and economy, 'The
Arthashastra' also devotes to a large extent to the art of administration and
decentralisation. In the medieval period Under Akbar's regime India also
witnessed a modified version of a new kind of federalism. Akbar was one of the
important votaries of provincial administration. He divided his kingdom into
well-defined provinces and established uniform administration in them. In 1602
the provinces numbered fifteen. They were Allahabad, Agra, Awadh, Ajmer,
Ahmedabad, Bihar, Bengal, Delhi, kabul, Lahore, Multan, Malwa, Merwar,
Khandesh, and Ahmednagar. The British government formally laid down the
institution of a federation into a concrete form as it exists today. The British

11
crown formally assumed the charge of administering India since 1858 ending the
company rule and continued their rule till the independence of India in 1947. The
crown rules introduced one by one acts to reform the administration of pre-
independent India and restructured the political system accordingly. Those acts
include Indian Councils Act of 1861, Indian Councils Act of 1892, Indian
Councils Act of 1909, Government of India Act of 1919, Government of India
Act of 1935 and Indian Independence Act of 1947.
To some extent federal features were introduced in India through the Government
of India Act 1919 that included relaxation in the central control over the provinces
by demarcating and separating the central and provincial subjects and it
separated, for the first time, provincial budgets from the Central budget and
authorised the provincial legislatures to enact their budgets.

Government of India Act 1935

The aforesaid provisions of Government of India Act of 1919 were extended
further under the Government of India Act of 1935. The Act marked a second
milestone towards a completely responsible government in India. It's provisions
that crystallized the foundation of Federalism in India include the followings

➢ It provided for the establishment of an All-India Federation consisting of

provinces and princely states as units. The Act divided the powers between
the Centre and units in terms of three lists–Federal List (for Centre, with
59 items), Provincial List (for provinces, with 54 items) and the Concurrent
List (for both, with 36 items). Residuary powers were given to the Viceroy.
However, the federation never came into being as the princely states did
not join it.
➢ It abolished dyarchy in the provinces and introduced ‘provincial
autonomy’ in its place. The provinces were allowed to act as autonomous

12
 units of administration in their defined spheres. Moreover, the Act
introduced responsible Governments in provinces, that is, the Governor
was required to act with the advice of ministers responsible to the
provincial legislature. This came into effect in 1937 and was discontinued
in 1939.
➢ It provided for the adoption of dyarchy at the Centre. Consequently, the
federal subjects were divided into reserved subjects and transferred
subjects. However, this provision of the Act did not come into operation at
all.
➢ It introduced bicameralism in six out of eleven provinces. Thus, the
legislatures of Bengal, Bombay, Madras, Bihar, Assam and the United
Provinces were made bicameral consisting of a legislative council (upper
house) and a legislative assembly (lower house). However, many
restrictions were placed on them.
➢ It provided for the establishment of not only a Federal Public Service
Commission, but also a Provincial Public Service Commission and Joint
Public Service Commission for two or more provinces.
➢ It provided for the establishment of a Federal Court, which was set up in
1937.
The present Indian constitution draws its inspiration from many of the provisions
of this act, more particularly federal features of the Indian constitution are
inspired from this Act. The classification of the subjects into three lists under the
seventh schedule is the original contribution of the Government of India Act
1935.

As far as the Indian federation is concerned it is important to highlight that the

Constitution of India does not specifically define it as federal. The term ‘federal’
or ‘federation’ was very much part of debate and discussion during the making

13
of the Constitution of India; but the same did not get favour in the final adoption
of the Constitution. Instead, the Constitution declares India as union. Nowhere in
the Constitution of India has the word ‘federal’ been used (perhaps with
deliberate intention of not using the word). Still India is recognized as a federal
country in the world; and various aspects of federalism are in fact visible within
the otherwise un-defined federal India. KC Wheare has described the Constitution
of India as “quasi-federal”. He remarked that “Indian Union is a unitary state with
subsidiary federal features rather than a federal state with subsidiary unitary
features.” The Constitution of India provides for a federal system of government
in the country. The framers adopted the federal system due to two main reasons–
the large size of the country and its sociocultural diversity. They realised that the
federal system not only ensures the efficient governance of the country but also
reconciles national unity with regional autonomy. However, the term ‘federation’
has no where been used in the Constitution. Instead, Article 1 of the Constitution
describes India as a ‘Union of States’. According to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the
phrase ‘Union of States’ has been preferred to ‘Federation of States’ to indicate
two things:
(i) the Indian federation is not the result of an agreement among the states
like the American federation; and
(ii) the states have no right to secede from the federation. The federation is
union because it is indestructible.
The Indian federal system is based on the ‘Canadian model’ and not on the
‘American model’. The ‘Canadian model’ differs fundamentally from the
‘American model’ in so far as it establishes a very strong centre. The Indian
federation resembles the Candian federation
(i) In its formation (i.e., by way of disintegration);
(ii) In its preference to the term ‘Union’ (the Canadian federation is also
called a ‘Union’); and

14
 (iii) In its centralising tendency (i.e., vesting more powers in the centre vis-
a-vis the states).

2.3 Federalism under the Indian Constitution

Federalism is part of the basic structure of the Indian constitution which cannot
be altered or destroyed through constitutional amendments under the constituent
powers of the Parliament without undergoing judicial review by the Supreme
Court. The Supreme Court in Kesavananda case 1973 and S.R. Bommai case
1994 upholds that federal character of the constitution and Federalism as the
elements of basis structure of the constitution respectively. Constitutionally there
is the provision of two or more levels (tiers) of government. Each level of
government has its own jurisdiction in matters of legislation, taxation, and
administration even though they govern the same citizens. Powers and functions
of each tier of government are specified and guaranteed by the Constitution. The
Supreme Court has been given the power to settle disputes between state
governments. Under the legislative powers the division of powers are defined by
the constitution and the legislative powers are divided into three lists:

Union List
Union List consists of 100 items (earlier 97) on which the parliament has
Exclusive power to legislate. This includes: defence, armed forces, arms and
Ammunition, atomic energy, foreign affairs, war and peace, citizenship,
Extradition, railways, shipping and navigation, airways, posts and telegraphs,
Telephones, wireless and broadcasting, currency, foreign trade, inter-state trade
And commerce, banking, insurance, control of industries, regulation and
Development of mines, mineral and oil resources, elections, audit of Government
accounts, constitution and organisation of the Supreme Court, High courts and
union public service commission, income tax, customs and Export duties, duties

15
of excise, corporation tax, taxes on the capital value of Assets, estate duty and
terminal taxes.

State List
State List consists of 61 items (earlier 66 items). Uniformity is desirable but Not
essential on items in this list: maintaining law and order, police forces,
Healthcare, transport, land policies, electricity in the state, village
Administration, etc. The state legislature has exclusive power to make laws on
These subjects. In certain circumstances, the parliament can make laws on
Subjects mentioned in the State List, but to do so the Rajya Sabha (Council of
States) must pass a resolution with a two-thirds majority that it is expedient to
Legislate in the national interest. Though states have exclusive powers to legislate
with regards to items on the State List, articles 249, 250, 252, and 253 mention
situations in which the Union government can legislate.

Concurrent List
Concurrent List consists of 52 (earlier 47) items. Uniformity is desirable but Not
essential on items in this list. The list mentions: marriage and divorce, transfer of
property other than agricultural land, education, contracts, bankruptcy and
insolvency, trustees and trusts, civil procedure, contempt of Court, adulteration
of foodstuffs, drugs and poisons, economic and social Planning, trade unions,
labour welfare, electricity, newspapers, books and Other (residuary) subjects

Residuary powers
Subjects not mentioned in any of the three lists are known as residuary subjects.
However, many provisions in the constitution outside these lists permit
parliament or state Legislative assembly to legislate. Excluding the provisions of
the constitution outside these lists per Article 245, the power to legislate on such

16
subjects, rests with the parliament exclusively per Article 248. Parliament shall
legislate on residuary subjects following the Article 368 procedure as
constitutional amendments.

In case the above lists are to be expanded or amended, the legislation should be
done by the Parliament under its constituent power per Article 368 with
ratification by the majority of the states.

2.4 Nature of Indian federalism: Cooperative and competitive

India opted for quasi-federal structure after independence. The term “federal”
has not been mentioned in the constitution but the working of Indian democracy
is essentially federal in structure. However, it is the practical working style of
federalism, which brought the concept of cooperative federalism and competitive
federalism in India. The present government is stressing on the need to leverage
the potential of cooperative and competitive federalism for achieving all round
inclusive development in India. In this context there is a need to examine the
concepts of cooperative and competitive federalism.

Cooperative vs Competitive Federalism

Based on the relationship between the central and state government–the concept
of federalism is divided into- Co-operative federalism and Competitive
federalism. In Cooperative federalism the Centre and states share a horizontal
relationship, where they “cooperate” in the larger public interest. It is an
important tool to enable states’ participation in the formulation and
implementation of national policies. Union and the states are constitutionally
obliged to cooperate with each other on the matters specified in Schedule VII of

17
the constitution. In Competitive federalism the relationship between the Central
and state governments is vertical and between state governments is horizontal.
This idea of Competitive federalism gained significance in India post 1990s
economic reforms. In a free-market economy, the endowments of states, available
resource base and their comparative advantages all foster a spirit of competition.
Increasing globalisation, however, increased the existing inequalities and
imbalances between states. In Competitive federalism States need to compete
among themselves and also with the Centre for benefits. States compete with each
other to attract funds and investment, which facilitates efficiency in
administration and enhances developmental activities. The investors prefer more
developed states for investing their money. Union government devolves funds to
the states on the basis of usage of previously allocated funds. Healthy competition
strives to improve physical and social infrastructure within the state. Competitive
federalism is not part of the basic structure of Indian constitution. It is the decision
of executives. The most important think tank of government of India, i e. NITI
Aayog has been constituted to actualise the important goal of cooperative
federalism and to enable good governance in India.

How NITI Ayog promotes cooperative federalism in India?

On the premise that strong states make a strong nation, NITI Aayog acts as the
quintessential platform for the Government of India by bringing States together
as ‘Team India’ to work towards the national development agenda. In view of
this, a number of steps have been taken by NITI Aayog to foster cooperative
federalism through structured support initiatives and engagement with the
States/UTs on a continuous basis. These include meetings between the Prime
Minister/Cabinet Ministers and all Chief Ministers; subgroups of Chief Ministers
on subjects of national importance; sharing of best practices; policy support and
capacity development of State/UT functionaries; launching of the Aspirational

18
Districts Programme for development of backward districts; theme-based
extensive engagements in various sectors; framing model laws for land leasing
and agriculture marketing reforms; and area-specific interventions for the North-
Eastern and Himalayan States and island development. NITI Aayog has been
providing relevant technical advice to the Centre, States and UTs. NITI has also
established models and programmes for the development of infrastructure and to
reignite and establish private-public partnership, such as the Centre-state
partnership model Development Support Services to States and Union Territories
(DSSS); and the Sustainable Action for Transforming Human Capital (SATH)
programme.

How NITI Ayog promotes competitive federalism in India?

NITI Aayog endeavours to promote competitive federalism by facilitating
improved performance of States/UTs. It encourages healthy competition among
states through transparent rankings, in various sectors, along with a hand-holding
approach. Some of the indices launched by NITI Aayog are School Education
Quality Index, State Health Index, Composite Water Management
Index, Sustainable Development Goals Index, India Innovation Index and Export
Competitiveness Index. NITI Aayog also releases delta rankings for the
performance of Aspirational Districts every month. The ranking of States in
various social sectors based on quantitative objective criteria encourages them,
and even districts, to improve their performance. NITI Aayog works closely with
all stakeholders, including the State/UT Governments, concerned
Ministries/Departments in developing indicator frameworks, review
mechanisms and capacity-building.

Chapter III: Tension areas in Centre states relations in India

19
3.1 Issues and challenges to federal polity in contemporary India:
The centre states relations in India is not free from tensions. The followings are
the areas of conflict in the centre states relations in India.

Centralised Planning
Although economic and social planning is found in the Concurrent List of the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, the Union Government enjoys unbridled
authority over national and regional planning in India. Centralised planning,
through the Planning Commission, now NITI Aayog appointed by the Centre,
considerable preponderance in legislative power for the Union, the financial
dependence of the states on the Centre’s mercy, the administrative inferiority of
the states make the states meek and weak.

Economic Incompatibilities of the units

Differences economic standards and relative economic and fiscal
incompatibilities among the constituent states also pose a threat to a federation.
The forces of imbalances in the field are demands for economic planning and
development and for regional economic equality and financial autonomy of
states. Demand for a financial equality of a region creates problems in a
federation. In India, some states are declared as poor and on the principle of
equalization, are getting grants-in-aid. But the dilemma in a federation emerges
that if the principle of equalization is adhered to, the national income and the total
income growth will suffer.

Centralized Amendment Power

In a typical federation, the power of amendment to the Federal Constitution lies
on a shared basis between the federation and its units. In India, the power of
constitutional amendment lies with the Centre under Article 368 and other

20
provisions. Although ratification of half of the states is sought for in some limited
areas, the states in the Indian Union have virtually no power in this critical area
of governance.

Regionalism
Regionalism is where and individuals region is given preference, at times that of
other regions as well. In a country as diverse and geographically vast as India,
regionalism can tends to rear its ugly head from time to time. Some factors can
be cultural as in the example of the Northeast states whose denizens feel that they
are not culturally close enough to the rest of the country or the case of the southern
states who feel they are not given their fair share of central funds despite having
large states

Till 1967, the relations between centre and states continued to be quite smooth
because congress was in power both at the centre and most of the states. After
that strains appeared because Congress lost power in many states and many
coalition Governments were formed in India by the opposition parties. In 1977,
the congress lost power at centre and the Janata party formed a government. Soon
after assumption of power the Janata government dismissed congress ministries
in nine states. But in 1980 congress again returned to power at the centre and
dismissed Janata ministries in nine states. A vociferous demand for reforms in
centre-state relations was made by West Bengal, Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab,
Maharashtra, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh etc. states of India.

3.2 Study teams on Centre states relations in India

A number of committee were appointed to examine how far the centre had
encroached upon the field of the states ? and to suggest how the states could be
granted genuine autonomy? These committees made several recommendations.

21
Similarly the administrative reforms commission also recommended withdrawal
of centre from the areas reserved for the states. It also recommended formulation
of certain guidelines for the exercise of discretionary powers by the governor.
The study committees constituted in independent India for discussion on Centre
states relations include the followings

Rajamannar Committee

This committee was set up by DMK government in Tamil Nadu in 1969. Apart
from making a call for immediate constitution of Inter-state Council, this
committee made following recommendations:

➢ Union government should not take any decision without consulting the
inter-state council when such decision can affect the interests of one or
more states.
➢ Every bill which affects interests of the states should be first referred to
inter-state council before it is introduced in parliament.
➢ Article 356 should be used only in rare cases of complete breakdown of
law and order in state.
➢ Residuary power of taxation should be vested with states.

These recommendations were completely ignored by the union government.

Anandpur Sahib Resolution

This resolution was passed by Akali Dal in 1973 and it called for making Indian
constitution a federal one in real sense. It said that Centre’s jurisdiction should be
restricted only in defense, foreign affairs, communications and currency. All the
remaining and residuary powers should be vested in states. All states should have
equal authority at Centre.

West Bengal Memorandum

22
The communist government in West Bengal published a memorandum in 1977
and sent it to central government. It made the following demands:

➢ Replace the word Union in the constitution with federation.

➢ Confine the jurisdiction of centre in matters of only defence, foreign
affairs, currency, communications and economic coordination
➢ All other subjects including the residuary should be vested in the states·
➢ Repeal articles 356, 357 and 360.
➢ State’s consent should be made obligatory for formation of new states or
reorganization of existing states
➢ Of the total revenue raised by the Centre from all sources 75 per cent
should be allocated to the states.
➢ Rajya Sabha should have equal power with that of the Lok Sabha;
➢ There should be only Central and state services and the all-India services
should be abolished.

Obviously, these were radical demands, and thus this memorandum went to great
dustbin of central government.

Sarkaria commission

Justice R. S. Sarkaria Commission was appointed in June 1983 and it had

presented its report to Rajiv Gandhi Government in 1987. This commission did
not favor any structural changes; and regarded the existing constitutional
arrangement sound. It stressed on cooperative federalism and noted that the
federalism is more a functional arrangement for cooperative action than a static
institutional concept. It stated that a strong centre is essential to safeguard the
national unity and integrity and rejected the demand for curtailing powers of
centre. At the same time, it did not equate strong centre with centralization of

23
powers because over-centralisation leads to blood pressure at the centre and
anaemia at the periphery.

The other key recommendations are as follows:

➢ Set up a permanent inter-state council called as “Inter-Governmental

Council” under article 263 of the constitution.
➢ Use of article 356 in extreme cases and only as a last resort.
➢ Further strengthen the All India Services and add more services to them.
➢ Residuary powers of taxation should be continued to be with centre while
other residuary powers should be placed in concurrent list.
➢ President should communicate reasons to state governments when he
withholds assent to bills of state legislature.
➢ Rename National Development Council as National Economic and
Development Council (NEDC).
➢ Fresh constitution of Zonal Councils to promote spirit of federalism.
➢ Centre should continue to have powers to deploy armed forces without
even consent of states. However, there should be a mechanism to consult
the states.
➢ Centre should consult the states before making a law on concurrent list.
➢ The constitution should be amended to provide for consultation with Chief
Minister in the appointment of the state governor.
➢ Corporation Tax should be included in sharable pool {it was not there at
that time}.
➢ Governor should not be able to dismiss the council of ministers as long as
it commands majority in state assembly.
➢ Governor’s term should be fixed to five years; and it should be disturbed
except for some extremely compelling reasons.

24
 ➢ No commission of inquiry should be set up against a minister in state unless
demand is made by
➢ Centre should levy surcharge only for specific purpose and for strictly a
limited period.
➢ The commission found division of functions between finance commission
and planning commission reasonable and recommended their continuation.
➢ Steps should be taken to implement three language formula.
➢ No autonomy for radio and television but decentralization in their
operations.
➢ No change in the role of Rajya Sabha and Centre’s power to reorganize the
states.
➢ The commissioner for linguistic minorities should be activated.

In summary, Sarkaria commission did not suggest any drastic changes in federal
scheme but favoured several changes to remove irritants in center-state relations.

MM Punchhi Commission

This commission was set up by UPA Government in 2007 and it gave its
recommendations in 2010. The key recommendations are as follows:

➢ There should be a consultation process between union and states via

Interstate Council for legislation on concurrent subjects.
➢ Regarding state bills, the President’s pocket veto is baffling because no
communication is given to the state when president decides to withhold
assent. This should end and there should be a reasonable time (6 months)
in which president communicates his decision.
➢ The treaty making powers of union should be regulated and states should
get greater participation in treaties where interests of states are involved.

25
 ➢ Governor should get clear guidelines for appointment of Chief Ministers
so that he does not mis-uses his discretionary powers in this context.
➢ There should be a two years cool off period from active politics before a
person is made governor. State chief minister should have a say in the
appointment of governor. Governor’s appointment should be done by a
committee comprising the Prime Minister, Home Minister, Speaker of the
Lok Sabha and chief minister of the concerned state.
➢ For removal of Governor, the doctrine of pleasure should end and governor
should not be removed at whim of central government. Governor should
be removed either by impeachment or by resolution in state assembly.
➢ Convention of making the Governors as chancellors of universities should
end.
➢ Article 355 and 356 should be amended. Via these amendments, the Centre
should be enabled to bring specific troubled areas under its rule for a
limited period, thus there should be localized emergency provisions instead
of entire state.
➢ National Integration Council should be provided teeth so that it can take
some actions in event of communal violence. However, it rejected
constitutional status to NIC. For a short period, Centre should have
sweeping powers to deploy army without state’s content in the communal
violence bill {which it was given to study}.

3.3 The federal process: Phase of development since independence

The framers of the Indian Constitution were keen on federalism as a functional

instrument for the creation of an Indian nation and a strong, cohesive state. The
leading politicians of the immediate post-Independence state were besieged by
threats to India's security both from outside and inside, and faced the challenge

26
of development through having perceived and chosen centralized economic
planning as an optimal method by which to reach that objective. Thus, both for
constitutional and political reasons, the institutionalization of a strong federalism
in the Indian system appears to have been seriously compromised from the outset.
Nonetheless, the political process has been able to adapt to this design, and in
many, though not all, cases mollify it when necessary to safeguard regional
interests.

First Phase: One-party Federalism (1952-1967)

In this phase, the influence of the regional leaders within the “Congress System”
and the rise of linguistic autonomy movement marked the regional assertion over
the national politics which consolidated the federal spirit right from the time of
Indian independence. During this period the INC enjoyed unbridled power both
at the centre and majority of the states. The federal arrangement was such that the
national political scene was presided over by Congress’s national leadership,
while the regional Congress leaders had a mass base of their own and possessed
considerable power and influence in their respective states. The demand by
several states for creating linguistic states signalled the predominance of regional
sentiment over National integration. The central government had initially decided
against creating linguistically organised states, fearing disunity. The pressure,
however, was created by a sustained regional movement in favour of linguistic
states and led to the reorganisation of the states on the basis of language. The
language agitation was none less. The Official Language Act, 1963—which made
Hindi the sole official language of India was opposed by several non-Hindi
speaking states particularly the southern states. However, in this era of one-party
dominance under Congress, the contentious questions of centre-state relations
and the evolving federal dynamics were mostly addressed within the

27
organizational fold of the Congress party itself, where most state governments
belonged with nominal exception.

Second Phase: ‘Expressive’ Federalism (1967-1989)

The 1967 elections was important for Indian federalism as the dominant Congress
party suffered a considerable electoral setback in the national as well as state
elections. Many regional parties and anti-Congress coalitions formed
governments in the states, marking the emergence of an era of “expressive” and
more active and directly conflictual federal dynamics between the Congress-led
centre and the opposition parties-led state governments. This era witnessed the
misuse of Article 356 which was unilaterally imposed on several non-Congress
ruling states. The national emergency imposed from 1975 to 1977 completely
transformed the nature of Indian state from a one party dominant state to a
completely authoritarian state. The split in Congress party also altered the tension
between center state relations. At this point of federal tensions, the Union
government appointed the Sarkaria Commission in 1983 to look into the
constitutional provisions on Centre-state relations.[This era therefore marked the
beginning of “expressive federalism” in India, as the regional political forces
interacted with the dominant Union government for their demands, and succeeded
to some extent.

Third Phase: Multiparty Federalism (1989-2014)

The rise of a number of regional parties brought a new era of multi-party system
in India. The massive defeat of the Congress party in the 1989 national elections
changed the country’s national political landscape. The political shrinking of the
Congress party and the inability of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to emerge as
the national alternative (despite BJP’s relative political rise), created a political
vacuum at the national level. This paved the way for the coalition of non-

28
Congress parties comprising of some regional parties along with the outside
support of the BJP and Communist Party of India (Marxist) to form the National
Front Government at the Centre led by Prime Minister V.P. Singh. This marked
the beginning of the era of coalition politics in India at the national level.This era
of multi-party coalition in national politics witnessed new fronts of Centre-State
tussle over national issues like foreign policy, national security decisions, and
economic reforms. As the regional parties supported the national party in the
coalition government, they wanted to influence the central government’s
decisions in all important aspects to protect own administrative autonomy,
regional interests as well as pursue their national political agendas. This phase
also witnessed further decentralisation of Indian politics as the 73rd and 74th
Amendments were passed in 1992 to strengthen the functioning of the third tier
of Indian federalism in the Municipal and Panchayat level. This strengthened the
ground for the empowerment the people at the grassroots.

Fourth Phase: The return of ‘Dominant Party’ Federalism (2014-present)

This phase marked the beginning of what is called the “renationalization of Indian
politics” with BJP as the new national political force. BJP’s more impressive win
in the 2019 elections strengthened its position as the new ‘dominant party’ in
India. After coming to power, the BJP government took some major steps in the
direction of strengthening the states. The Commission was replaced by the Niti
Aayog which the Union government assured would have “active involvement of
the states in the spirit of “co-operative” federalism.” Second, the Goods and
Services Tax (GST) by which the Centre and states would “become equal fiscal
partners in sharing a common indirect tax base” was implemented. A GST
Council was formed to create a consensus amongst the states regarding the
decision. Third, the Union government accepted the 14th Finance Commission
recommendation to give the states 42-percent share of the funds from the central

29
pool (from the previous 32 percent). However, how far Niti Aayog and the
devolution of increased funds have a bearing on deepening of federalism in
tangible proportions, has to be more closely examined with time as it has its own
challenges. Policies like demonetisation, abrogation of Article 370, and changing
the political status of Kashmir and the passing of Citizenship Amendment Act
(CAA) 2019 met with little resistance from the regional forces in opposition to
the BJP, with few exceptions. The trend where the regional actors are largely
rallying behind the nationalist policy decisions of the central government marks
the beginning of ‘national federalism' in India. The most important moment for
federalism in this phase is the revelation of the vital role of state governments on
the ground in managing the COVID-19 crisis. After initial challenges, the Union
government ceded adequate space and autonomy to the states for strengthening
their healthcare facilities, managing the localised lockdowns, and implementing
social security measures to mitigate the impact of the pandemic. As health
remains a state subject, the states—regardless of their political equation with the
Union government in most cases—worked as main agents of healthcare providers
and governance providers within their jurisdiction, with the Centre playing the
coordinating role

3.4 An analysis of working of Federalism in India:

The provisions of the Indian constitution makes it clear that India is heavily tilted
towards a centralised federalism. Though the constituting units derive their
powers and functions from the constitution of India, those have been superseded
by the powers and position of the central government.
According to B L Fadia, the centralised federalism in India has been the result of
five outstanding factors including
1. Monolithic parties which control the state organization through their
national organs.

30
 2. Congress rule in the union and in all the states from 1950 till 1967 with
minor exceptions
3. Introduction of national planning as the medium for rapid economic growth
in the country.
4. The emergency declared in the wake of Chinese aggression in 2962 and
Pakistani aggression in 1965 and 1971.
5. The dominating personality of Jawaharlal Nehru ad the prime minister
from 1950 to 1964
The framers of the Indian constitution has borrowed largely from other federal
constitutions of the world and have learnt their experiences and working which
helped them reach a much modified version of Federalism in India. Like other
constitutions it's largely an instrument of the government of the country. It's
sufficiently elastic for adaptation to India's changing and growing needs. From
the above, it is clear that the Constitution of India has
deviated from the traditional federal systems like US, Switzerland
and Australia and incorporated a large number of unitary or non-
federal features, tilting the balance of power in favour of the Centre.
This has prompted the Constitutional experts to challenge the federal character of
the Indian Constitution. The federal scheme of India has been variously
described by the eminent scholars of this field as below.

Thinkers Comment

K C Wheare Quasi-federal

Paul Appleby Indian system as “extremely federal”

Morris Jones Bargaining federalism

Ivor Jennings Federation with a strong centralising tendency

31
 Alexandrowicz India is a case sui generis (i.e., unique in character)

Granville Austin Indian federalism as a “cooperative federalism”.

KC Wheare remarked that “Indian Union is a unitary state with subsidiary federal
features rather than a federal state with subsidiary unitary features.”
According to K Santhanam, the two factors have been responsible for increasing
the unitary bias (tendency of centralisation) of the Constitution. These are:
(i) the dominance of the Centre in the financial sphere and the
dependence of the states upon the Central grants; and
(ii) the emergence of a powerful erstwhile planning commission
which controlled the developmental process in the states
He observed: “India has practically functioned as a unitary state though the
Union and the states have tried to function formally and legally as a federation.”
However, there are other political scientists who do not agree with the above
descriptions. On the nature of Indian Constitution, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar made the
following observation in the Constituent Assembly: “The Constitution is a
Federal Constitution in as much as it establishes a dual polity. The Union is not a
league of states, united in a loose relationship, nor are the states the agencies of
the Union, deriving powers from it. Both the Union and the states are created by
the Constitution, both derive their respective authority from the Constitution.” He
further observed: “Yet the Constitution avoids the tight mould of federalism and
could be both unitary as well as federal according to the requirements of time and
circum-stances”. While replying to the criticism of over-centralisation in the
Constitution, he stated: “A serious complaint is made on the ground that there is
too much centralisation and the states have been reduced to municipalities. It is
clear that this view is not only an exaggeration but is also founded on a

32
misunderstanding of what exactly the Constitution contrives to do. As to the
relations between the Centre and the states, it is necessary to bear in mind the
fundamental principle on which it rests. The basic principle of federalism is that
the legislative and executive authority is partitioned between the Centre and the
states not by any law to be made by the Centre but by the Constitution itself. This
is what the Constitution does. The states are in no way dependent upon the Centre
for their legislative or executive authority. The states and the Centre are coequal
in this matter. It is difficult to see how such a Constitution can be called
centralism. It is, therefore, wrong to say that the states have been placed under
the Centre. The Centre cannot by its own will alter the boundary of this partition.
Nor can the judiciary”.
In Bommai case(1994), the Supreme Court laid down that is federal and
characterised federalism as its ‘basic feature’. It observed: “The fact that under
the scheme of our Constitution, greater power is conferred upon the Centre vis-
à-vis the states does not mean that the states are mere appendages of the Centre.
The states have an independent constitutional existence. They are not satellites or
agents of the Centre. Within the sphere allotted to them, the states are supreme.
The fact that during emergency and in certain other eventualities their powers are
overridden or invaded by the Centre is not destructive of the essential federal
feature of the Constitution. They are exceptions and the exceptions are not a rule.
Let it be said that the federalism in the Indian Constitution is not a matter of
administrative convenience, but one of principle–the outcome of our own process
and a recognition of the ground realities”. In fact, the federalism in India
represents a compromise between the following two conflicting considerations :
(i) normal division of powers under which states enjoy autonomy within their
own spheres; and
(ii) need for national integrity and a strong Union government unde exceptional
circumstances.

33
The following trends in the working of Indian political system
reflects its federal spirit:
(i) Territorial disputes between states, for example, between Maharashtra and
Karnataka over Belgaum;
(ii) Disputes between states over sharing of river water, for example, between
Karnataka and Tamil Nadu over Cauvery Water;
(iii) The emergence of regional parties and their coming to power in states like
Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, etc.;
(iv) The creation of new states to fulfil the regional aspirations, for example,
Mizoram or Jharkhand;
(v) Demand of the states for more financial grants from the Centre to meet their
developmental needs;
(vi) Assertion of autonomy by the states and their resistance to the interference
from the Centre;
(vii) Supreme Court’s imposition of several procedural limitations on the use of
Article 356 (President’s Rule in the States) by the Centre.

Federalism in India refers to relationship between the Central Government and

the State governments of India. The Constitution of India establishes the structure
of the Indian government. Part XI of the Indian constitution specifies the
distribution of legislative, administrative, executive powers between the union
government and the States of India. The legislative powers are categorised under
a Union List, a State List and a Concurrent List, representing, respectively, the
powers conferred upon the Union government, those conferred upon the State
governments and powers shared among them. This federalism is symmetrical in
that the devolved powers of the constituent units are envisioned to be the same.
Historically, the state of Jammu and Kashmir was accorded a status different from
other States owing to an explicitly temporary provision of the Indian Constitution

34
namely Article 370 (which was revoked by the Parliament in 2019). Union
territories are unitary type, directly governed by the Union government.

Conclusion
To sum up, the Indian federation has steadily progressed from the feudal and
colonial phases of history to a parliamentary federal political system under the
1950 Constitution. The working of the structure has slowly become more federal
under the impact of a series of factors. The states are making themselves heard
and felt politically and economically more than they ever have in the half-century
since India gained its independence from Britain. Growing politicization of
society, regionalisation of the party system, changes in the economic sector in
unleashing new liberal economic policies, the long overdue judicial activism
favouring independence and autonomy of state governments, the President and
Governors have all led to a new federalized Indian politics. While on one hand
the system was getting more and more federalized and decentralized, yet on the
other hand the old regulatory establishment continued to outline the path and
process of liberalization in important ways. State-guided routes to liberalization
rather than market fundamentalism are operational in most states. Some noted
scholars believe that though there has been an increase in the effective exercise
of power by state and local governments, India still remains a centralized
federation. The earlier mode of governance based on strict license and permit has
been replaced by new regulatory bodies They are the new pillars on which the
federal governance of growth now rests.

References;
• Indian polity, M. Laxmikanth, MC Graw Hill Education

35
 • Indian Government and Politics, B L Fadia, Sahitya Bhawan
• Oxford companion to politics in India, Niraja Gopal Jayal, Pratap Bhanu
Mehta, Oxford University Press
• www.britannica.com/topic/federalism
• ncert.nic.in
• www.egyankosh.ac.in
• https://epgp.inflibnet.ac.in

36