NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

LL.M PROGRAMME

COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

PROJECT ASSIGNMENT ON:

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF FEDERAL STRUCTURE OF INDIA AND
SWITZERLAND

UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF

DR. SUSHMA SHARMA

SUBMITTED BY
LEJURI DARRO
ROLL NO. – 2021 LLM 49

INDEX

1
List of cases 3
Statutes 3
Abstract 4
Introduction 5
Review of Literature 6
Statement of Problem 7
Hypothesis 7
Research Objectives 7
Research Questions 7
Research Methodology 8
Source of Data 8
Limitation and Scope 8
Chapterisation 8
Federalism 9
Federalism in India 11
Trend of Federalism in India 11
Federalism in Switzerland 13
Comparative analysis between Indian and Switzerland Federal structure 19
Conclusion and Suggestions 21
Bibliography 23

LIST OF CASES

2
  S R Bommai vs Union of India

STATUES
 Constitution of India, 1950
 The Federal Constitution of Swiss Confederation, 2000

ABSTRACT

3
In the present paper, the Researcher has intended to analyze the federal structure of two
prominent countries, India and Switzerland. The paper discusses about the features of
federalism, the historical evolution of federal structure in India since Independence and that
of Switzerland. The researcher has relied on various constitutional provisions of the above-
mentioned countries to reflect the federal features embedded.
The researcher discusses about the peculiar nature of both the countries, the reason behind
adopting the federal structure that is been followed respectively and how it has been helpful
for the survival of the country.
Further, the paper compares the different federal structure existing in the two countries. The
researcher has concluded the paper by citing the shortcomings of the federal structure in both
the countries, suggestions have been provided for the effective federalism and the features of
each federal structure that could be adopted for better governance.

Keywords: Federalism, Federal structure, Governance

CHAPTER 1-

4
 INTRODUCTION
The functioning of every state differs according to the government that exist there. Even if
same form of government exists in different states, there might be differences existing. Every
country owing to its historical background, its peculiar nature: socio, political and economical
adopts a system of governance most suitable to it.
Federalism, is one of the most prominent form of governance, followed by many countries
due to various reasons- reflects democratic principles, ensures unity and national integrity,
cooperation, promotes welfare of the society and its adaptability nature.
India, populous and diverse country, follows federalism with strong center, parliamentary
form of government and indirect democracy whereas Switzerland, a diverse country
regarding religion, linguistic and ethnicity follows federalism with decentralization, strong
state autonomy, direct democracy. It’s the diversity element which is common in both the
country, but the approach made by the respective country regarding governance is unique to
themselves and works efficiently for them
Comparative analysis of both the countries’ federal structure, on one hand the quasi-federal
and on the other hand classic federation, would help in better understanding of one’s own
institution.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
5
  M.G. Khan, ‘Federal system in India and Switzerland and Recent trends’ (2009) 70
The Indian Journal of Political Science 1
In this Article, the federal trend followed in India since Independence and the
evolution of federal system in Switzerland has been discussed. The federal system of
Switzerland has been discussed elaboratory. The Article has covered the shortcoming
of the Swiss federal structure but hasn’t covered the shortcomings of the Indian
Federal structure, which has been discussed in the given research paper.
 Ambar Kumar Ghosh, ‘The paradox of ‘Centralized Federalism’: An analysis of
challenges to India’s federal design (2020) 272 Observer Research foundation2
In this Article, emphasis has been placed on the center- state relation in political
context since Independence. How the politics at the center has tried to dominate the
state politics over the years and the state has tried to assert its autonomy. This Article
doesn’t discuss about the other aspect of federalism, like the constitutional provisions,
the other social factors for country’s federal structure and no suggestions have been
provided to overcome the challenges of the federalism in India, which has been
discussed in the given research paper.
 Wolf Linder, ‘Federalism: The case of Switzerland’, (2013) 1 No. 3 International
Relations and Diplomacy3
In this Article, an elaborate description has been provided regarding the history of
Switzerland, evolution of federal structure in the country, features of federalism
present there, functioning of the government including its three organs. The Paper
fails to discuss about the challenges faced by the Switzerland’s federalism, which has
been discussed in the given research paper.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

1
M.G. Khan, ‘Federalism in India and Switzerland and Recent trends’ (2009) 70 The Indian Journal of Political
Science 569,590
2
Ambar Kumar Ghosh, ‘The Paradox of Centralized: An analysis of challenges to India’s Federal design’ (2020)
272 Observer Research Foundation 5,30

3
Wolf Linder, ‘Federalism: The case of Switzerland’, 92013) 1 No.3 International Relations and Diplomacy 177,
188

6
The concept of federalism means different for different country. Every country, who is
governed by the principles of federalism, has made its federal structure adaptable to its
country’s political, social context and its need and thereby incorporated different other
features of other form of governance according to its need, thus making its federal structure
unique to itself. India and Switzerland, both being a diverse country, has a federal structure
which is indifferent to each other in its own way. This research paper discussed about the
evolution of federal structure in India, Switzerland and how their peculiar federal design has
helped the country’s evolution. The paper further discusses about the issues faced by the
respective country’s federal design and what could be done and incorporated to make the
federal design efficient.

HYPOTHESIS
The Constitution of India has inherent biasness toward the central government and has
empowered the center in many situations, thus making the Indian federalism centralized. The
unitary features are dominant in the constitution of India, thus making India a Quasi- federal
nation. The Constitution of Switzerland, reflects the decentralizing tendency by giving power
and autonomous to the cantons and the center with limited power and responsibilities being
allotted.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
1. To understand the nature of Indian Constitution and Switzerland Constitution
2. To examine the evolution of federal design in India and Switzerland
3. To assess the features of federalism in Indian and Switzerland’s Constitution
4. To critically compare the federal design of India and Switzerland

RESEARCH QUESTION
1. Whether the form of government existing in a country is influenced by the prevailing
conditions, the political and the social context?
2. What has motivated India and Switzerland to adopt the federal design peculiar to
them?
3. What are the features of federalism in Indian and Switzerland’s Constitution?
4. What are the similarities and distinction between the India and Switzerland’s
Federalism?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Doctrinal method has been used in the research paper.

7
 SOURCE OF DATA
The secondary source of data has been heavily used in the research paper. Existing
literature on the given area like Articles, Journals, Government Reports have been
utilized. The researcher shall use the fourth edition of OSCOLA as a uniform method
of citation for footnotes and bibliography.

LIMITATION AND SCOPE

In furtherance of the objectives of the study, the scope of this research study is limited
to federalism of India and Switzerland in respect of the relation between different
level of government existing in the given country. Owing to the limited time allotted
for the research and the word limit being prescribed, much emphasizes couldn’t be
done on the other aspects of federalism in the given country. Few judgements and
Commissions’ reports have been dealt with but not extensively.

CHAPTERISATION
 Chapter 1: Introduction and Research Methodology
 Chapter 2: Federalism
 Chapter 3: a) Federalism in India
b) Federalism in Switzerland
 Chapter 4: Comparative analysis between India and Switzerland’s Federal structure
 Chapter 5: Conclusion and suggestions

CHAPTER 2: FEDERALISM

8
Dicey observed that “Federalism means the distribution of the force of the state among a
number of co-ordinate bodies each originating in and controlled by the constitution”.4
Federalism, can be referred as a type of a political system, where power is divided between
the central or federal government and the state government. It is different from a unitary form
of government as well as a confederation.
About 30 countries in the world which constitutes the half of the world’s population is
governed by the Federal political system. The reason for federalism to be a popular form of
government is its adjusting and adaptative nature. It ensures adequate political representation
of diverse people, both culturally, economically and socially.5
Federalism is considered suitable for a country with large population like India, Germany and
America and a diverse country, which doesn’t necessarily have to be a populous like
Belgium, Switzerland and Nepal.
Even though majority of the country in the world is under Federal political structure, the
degree and of federalism is different due to the political, economic, cultural scenario of a
country. For instance, subject of citizenship comes under Central government’s ambit in India
whereas in USA it’s a matter of State government. One can say, even though countries
following federalism has same principle underlying their political system yet they are unique
in their political governance.
Features of Federal form of Government-
1. Two level of Government- For a Federal political system to exist, there must be
minimum two level of government. One would be at the central level, often referred
as Federal or Union government and the second one at the entity level, which would
be the state or province level.
There are countries where exist more than two levels of Government, like
Switzerland.
The government at the central level is concerned with matters of utmost importance to
the Country as a whole, like Defense, Foreign policy.
The government at the State level is concerned with matters, which are paramount to
the public residing in that area, like Education, Public healthcare.
This ensures that every matter, whether its of national importance or paramount to a
given area is addressed.
2. Written Constitution- The power sharing, responsibilities of the government is been
provided in a written constitution to ensure the enforceability of the federal
agreement. It guarantees that each level of government has a say in the amendment of
the paramount provision of the Constitution. Thus, ensuring that the power dynamics
of different level of government is not changed easily.
3. Supremacy of Constitution- Constitution is considered as the law of the land, i.e., all
the other laws exiting in the territory must abide by the constitutional provisions for
its enforceability.

4
Dicey, ‘Law of the Constitution’ (10th edition) 155,157
5
https://www.idea.int/news-media/media/what-federalism accessed 12th October 2021

9
4. Bicameralism- In this the Legislature is divided into two houses or chamber. One of
the houses represents the entities at the decision-making level of the government.
Example- Senate in USA

10
CHPATER 3: A) FEDERALISM IN INDIA
India is a Quasi-federal nation as described by K.C. Wheare.6
It’s hard to classify a political system of a country completely as a federal structure because it
has features of other political systems as well with the federal structure being dominant, thus
making their system peculiar to themselves.
Federation comes from the Latin word “foedus”, which means agreement. Therefore, we can
say that federation is a political system formed through a treaty between the entities of the
country.7 USA is a classic example for this. Whereas India doesn’t fall under this model of
federalism, it falls under the holding together federation.8
Features of Indian constitution making it a federal state-
1. Two level of government – one at the central level and the other being at the state
level.
2. Division of power between the two level of government- The Seventh Schedule of
Indian Constitution provides for the three list under which the two level of the
government can legislate.
a. Union List- Where the central government can legislate
b. State list – Where the state government can legislate.
c. Concurrent list- Where both the state and central government can legislate.
3. Supremacy of the Constitution- Every law in the country to be operative has to
abide by the Constitutional principles for its existence. The Indian Judiciary over
the years through its judgment has reiterated that the Constitution of India is the
supreme law of the land.
4. Independent Judiciary- Article 509 of Indian constitution clearly states that there
should be a clear division between the executive and Judiciary for smooth
functioning of the country. The Supreme court of India is at the apex level, with
high courts being second in the hierarchy of the Indian court system and the
district court below it. Supreme court of India is binding over the courts
subordinate to it.

Trend of Federalism in India

Inherently the Indian Constitution is bias to the central government. One can trace the reasons
in the Constitutional assembly debates for it. After Independence, there was lot of chaos
among the diverse people, each group and constituents wanted their culture to be preserved
and to be a part of nation building. The makers knew that for a stable and flourishing nation,
they need to adopt a federal structure. They were aware of the fact that making India a full
federal state might led to disunity, distrust, a call for partition and erode the harmony in the
country. Most of the members including Jawaharlal Nehru advocated for a strong Centre to
ensure the national integrity, harmony and to avoid chaos. Dr. Ambedkar made it clear that

6
K.C. Wheare, Federal Government (1rst edn, London: Oxford University Press 1949).
7
M. Laxmikant, Indian Polity (6th edn, New Delhi: McGraw Hill Education, 2013).
8
Alfred Stephan, ‘Federalism and beyond Democracy: US Model’ (1999) 10(4) Journal of Democracy 19,34.
9
The constitution of India, 1950 art 50

11
India is not a federation, and the states are neither the agents of the center nor Union is a
league of states, Therefore, Article 1 of Indian constitution states that India is a union of
states.10
After Independence, there was a demand for creation of linguistic states which the
government feared would interfere in the integrity and unity of the country. But
they couldn’t resist for a very long time and reorganized the states. With time,
certain states like Jammu and Kashmir were given special status due to its peculiar
political, social and cultural nature. Initially, the Central government proposed
Hindi to be the official language of the country which didn’t go down well with
many states who didn’t speak Hindi predominantly. To avoid such resentments
and to ensure stability, Hindi and English were declared to the official language of
communication. 11These instances could be seen where the desire of regional
autonomy of the state has overpowered the Centre, and the Centre had to
cooperate with the states to ensure the stability of the country.
Features of Indian constitution reflecting a strong Centre-
1. Article 254, Indian Constitution states that in case of conflict between central
and state law on the same subject provided in the concurrent list, the central
law shall prevail.12
2. Article 3 of Indian Constitution states that the Parliament is empowered to
create a new state, alter the boundaries of the existing states through law.13
3. Emergency Provision (Article 352, 356, 360)- The central government is
empowered to safeguard the national integrity, sovereignty, democratic
political institution of the country by proclaiming different emergencies
provided in the part XVIII of Indian Constitution. According to Article 356,
State emergency can be proclaimed by the Centre, if in their opinion the
constitutional machinery in the state has broken down.

After Independence (pre-1967), there was an immense cooperation between the

Centre and state due to the one party ruling at both the level of government. The
congress had dominance in the political system of the country as a whole and even
at the grassroot level which helped in streamlining the policies without resistance.
Even the regional leaders were involved in the national policies. We can refer it as
a Consensual Federalism.

After 1967, the Centre state relation changed drastically. The congress had its dominance at
the Centre level but was losing its essence at the state level where state parties came into
power, leading to a constrained relation between Centre- state. Many regional parties wanted
to change the Centre -state relation thereby more autonomy to the states. In 1969, Congress
had a breakdown in their party’s structure as many influential regional leaders weren’t given
priority and the loyalists of Indra Gandhi were made as minister, which affected the
10
Constituent Assembly Debates Vol.VIII, 33.
11
K Venkataramanan, ‘What is the three-language formula’ (2019) The Hindu
12
The Constitution of India,1950 art 254.
13
The Constitution of India, 1950 art 3

12
environment of the party. Congress was able to win due to the leadership of Indra Gandhi but
was losing its vote base over the time due to emergence of new regional parties in the states.
14
Indra Gandhi did invoke Article 356 in states where it wasn’t ruled by the congress and the
same was done in 1977 by the Janta Party. Such practice manifests the strained Centre-state
relation. In this context, scholar Bhagwan D. Dua argued [34] that due to the “excessive use of
president rule”, the “autonomy of states has been reduced to a farce”. Such excessive
centralising tendencies gave rise to a conflictual nature of federalism. 
In 1980s, the centre was concentrating more power to itself and at the same time many
parties in states like Assam, Punjab, Kashmir and Andhra Pradesh were demanding more
state autonomy , and more power in administrative, executive domain, this led to the
appointment of Sarkaria Committee. This committee was appointed to look into the centre -
state relation and what could be done to improve it as for a long time they weren’t sharing a
cordial relation and enormous amount of agitation had been there by the states for
autonomy. The recommendation couldn’t be implemented by the government effectively.
Coalition governance came to India after 1967 election, when congress couldn’t dominate
the state elections and regional parties together came to power. The defeat of congress at
1989 election was a turning point as it changed the one-party system to coalition
government. Many regional parties came to the national front by becoming a part of the
coalition government. The coalition government system didn’t work effectively initially as
it was short lived but it became stable after 1999s with the coming of NDA I, UPA I AND
UPA II. The coalition government system has been effective for the federal structure as it
has allowed the regional parties to make themselves be heard and be a part of the national
politics and reduce the friction between centre-state.
Many institutional changes took place which improved the federal spirit.
1. S R BOMMAI VS UOI15- A landmark judgement on Centre-state relation. An
immunity was provided to the state governments against the arbitrary use of Article
356. Certain guidelines were provided which has to be followed to invoke Article
356. It provided situations where the power under Article 356 could be used and
couldn’t be.
14
James Manor, ‘India and After: The Decay of Party Organisation in India’,  Round Table, No. 272, (1978)
315,324
15
S R Bommai v Union of India 1994 AIR 1918, 1994 SCC (3) 1.

13
 2. 73rd and 74th Amendment- It empowered the third tier of governance i.e., municipality
and Panchayati raj
3. Liberalization, Privatization and globalization – It opened the market even for the
states and to bring investment for their respective states’ growth and development
The present scenario- After the 2014 election, BJP has become a dominant party at the
national politics and has even captured the 2019 election. The party had envisioned
cooperative federalism as one of their agendas in the 2014th election, and they have taken
various steps to ensure it. NITI AYOG, GST and GST Council are the few instances where
the center has tried to empower the state governments. The national political force, BJP has
been facing opposition in the states by the regional political forces since 2019 but has been
successful in facing no resistance at the national front. In many states, Bjp has formed
government by defection, many governors have favored them in state formation like in Goa
and they have proclaimed Presidential rule in states like Uttarakhand and Aruranchal
Pradesh.16 This reflects the centralizing tendency which hasn’t been so evidently since the
coalition governance came into India.
B) FEDERALISM IN SWITZERLAND
Switzerland, situated in Europe, is a diverse country. The population speaks 4 major
languages: German, French, Italian and Roman. A country which once had agriculture as its
main occupation and no natural resources has evolved into a country which is a part of major
international organizations like OECD, UN, engaged in industries like banking, tourism and
Watches. The adoption of federalism as a political system has helped the country to flourish
and to accommodate diverse people. 17
Switzerland, a country which is diverse ethnically, linguistically and culturally, is governed
by a political system of federalism, considered to be close to utopia. Their political system is
based on 3 factors – Decentralization, Direct democracy and Federalism.
A classic federation, it has three level of government: Federal government, 26 cantons (20
full cantons and 6 half cantons) and 2500 communes. The cantons are like state, entities into
which the country is divided, they have their political autonomy and holds more power as
compared to the constituent entity in a federal system of government as prevalent in most
countries. The communes are the unusual municipality.
It was the French revolution, which made the 25 cantons to mutually agree to make a treaty
for their security but this didn’t work efficiently as majority of the cantons wanted a central
governance for the nation building which was been done around them in countries like
France, Austria. In 18th century, there was a civil war between the protestants, preached
liberalism, wanted a central government for governance and favored industrialization and
development whereas the Catholics, on the other hand, who had a orthodox view wanted the
old order. In 1848, Swiss federation was created to end this conflict where the cantons

16
Rajeshwari Deshpande, Louise Tillin and K. K. Kailash, ‘The BJP’s Welfare Schemes: Did They Make a

Difference in the 2019 Elections?’  (2020) Studies in Indian Politics 219,233.

17
Wolf Linder, ‘Federalism: The case of Switzerland’ (2013) 1(3) International relations and diplomacy 1,3.

14
preserved majority of their powers ie. their autonomy and the central government had power
regarding money, defense and foreign policy.
The central government is concerned with the country as whole like Armed forces, foreign
policy and national infrastructure. The 26 cantons have their own constitutions, they just need
to abide by the principle of democracy, provide fundamental rights and the constitutional
principles provided in the federal constitution. It reflects the autonomous nature of the
cantons. The cantons are concerned with the secondary education, culture of their respective
cantons, cantonal infrastructure, security at police level and manage tax at their cantons. They
can have their own political organization and can provide enormous amount of autonomy in
their legislative sphere concerning with taxes, financial policies concerning with the
respective cantons. The communes are concerned with the primary education and local
services like village security.
The Swiss legislature is a bicameral legislature. The Council of states being the upper house,
like the Senate in USA, has 46 representatives (2 from one full canton and 1 from a half
canton). It’s irrelevant how populated a canton is as its fixed the number of representatives to
prevent popular cantons to determine the policy. The cantons make the rules regarding the
election procedure for a representative at the Council of state. Representative to the council
of state is elected every four years. The National council, often referred as Federal Assembly,
has 200 representatives who are elected by the proportional representative system, which
means cantons having more population have more seats at the National council.
The federal council is the executive branch, which has 7 (2+2+2+1) members coming from 4
majority party existing in Switzerland. Each member in the council has same status and
power. The president of the council is just the representative of the council, who serves for 1
year and the next person to be appointed as the president has to be from a different party from
that of the last President. This ensures avoidance of concentration of power.
Direct Democracy is a feature of Switzerland. Referendum and Popular Initiative,
mechanism of direct democracy, is provided in the federal constitution. Constitution
describes the conditions under which a referendum can be employed is specified.
Referendum, kind of veto power is of two kinds: Optional and Mandatory.
1. Mandatory Referendum- Article 140 deals with the subject under which Mandatory
Referendum can be employed. Some of them require to pass double majority like
revision of the federal constitution, entering an organization for collective security
and urgent federal legislation (exceeded one year validity) without any constitutional
basis. The double majority means it need to achieve popular majority and majority
votes in majority of cantons. Popular initiatives for total revision of the constitution or
partial revision of the constitution in form of general suggestion rejected by the
Parliament, and whether there should be total revision of the constitution when both
chambers disagree. In such cases, popular majority vote is required.18
2. Optional Referendum- Article 141 deals with it. It is held in regard to new or
amended federal Act, International treaty, Urgent Federal law whose validity has
exceeded one year validity. Such a referendum is called if 50,000 votes are collected

18
The Federal Constitution of Swiss Confederation, 2000 art 140.

15
 in favor of the Referendum or 8 cantons request for the referendum and pass it with a
popular majority.19

Initiatives are way of proposing change to the Constitution. In recent times, it can be
used in regard to a general law provision. Once the initiatives get the requisite number
of signatures, then it can be placed before the Federal parliament for consideration
and to hold a referendum on the proposal by the Initiatives. This initiative mechanism
can be used to amend the constitution in two ways- the popular initiatives for partial
revision of the constitution gives an opportunity to the voters to propose a draft
revision part of the constitution. 100,000 votes are required for a referendum to be
held on the proposal. Even the total revision of the constitution requires 100,00
popular initiatives votes. The requisite votes need to be collected within 18 months of
the initiatives being filed.
Swiss Constitution, 2000- The Swiss updated their Constitution in 2000 to empower
their federal system to tackle the new challenges and to ensure harmony, peace
between the different communities living in the country. The differences between
diverse linguistic communities became evident with time and to address the issue, the
new Constitution-
1. Article 4- Declares all the 4 major languages- German, French, Italian and Roman
as the official language of the Country20
2. Article 70- Empowers and allows the Roman speaking citizens to have their
contract in relation to the administration in their Roman language21
3. Article 18- Freedom of language as on the fundamental liberties
4. Article 70(2) states that Cantons will provide the official language of their area
and in doing so they to ensure harmony and peace between different linguistic
communities.22
These Articles of the updated constitution reflects the efforts of the federal
government to ensure linguistically diverse people are been respected, there is
harmony among them and the cantons have autonomy in choosing their official
language

The Swiss people ae culturally diverse and still living in harmony as they are
dedicated to their respective cantons and to the federal principles embedded in the
constitution. The constitution itself in Article 2 promotes the culture diversity of
Switzerland.
Swiss political system not only has to address the diverse culturally, linguistic
group but also protect individual liberty at the same time. For this, they have
developed political mechanism to ensure peace among individuals as well as
different groups. Religion a cause of conflict is not an issue there as the
Constitution as well the state machinery guarantees individual freedom of religion
as well as collective rights of religious communities. Article 72 deals with the
assurance of peace and harmony among different religious communities. 23The
19
The Federal Constitution of Swiss Confederation, 2000 art 141.
20
The Federal Constitution of Swiss Confederation, 2000 art 4.
21
The Federal Constitution of Swiss Confederation, 2000 art 70.
22
The Federal Constitution of Swiss Confederation, 2000 art 70(2).
23
The Federal Constitution of Swiss Confederation, 2000 art 72

16
 federal and cantonal governmental authorities have a responsibility to secure
amity and harmony among different linguistic communities across Switzerland as
language has been an area of conflict in the country persistently for a long time.
The new constitution ensure that the status and the secession of a canton is subject
to the approval of the population of the respective cantons, the entire country’s
public and the majority of cantons, thus providing a democratic procedure for it.
The cantons were refrained from forming political alliances with each other as
well as with other countries to avoid disintegration of the country, now such
restriction has been removed as the political governance of the country has
empowered the unity of the country. Cantons now are made an important part of
the foreign relation as they have to be involved in the international co-operation
(Article 55). 24
In Switzerland, the federal structure can’t be just restricted to federal and cantonal
government, it has to include and consider the Communes as it too has a diverse
population and such an inclusion would ensure proper integration and harmony in
the country. When it comes to the commune’s autonomy, they were subject to the
cantonal law for their working but now they protected under the new constitution
(Article 50). Now, the federal government has to take into account the effect of
their policies, economic welfare on the communes and cantons can even merge
the communes of required to ensure the communes are able to deliver their duty as
a governance entity but such a merger requires referendum of the concerned
commune’s population, thus ensuring participatory democracy. It is the canton’s
legislative branch or the referendum deciding the aspect of tax, the amount to be
collected and the procedure regarding it, which created an inequal system of
collection tax across the tax. Now the Federal government can bring consonance
in the tax system of different cantons (Article 129 Para2). The federal government
power has to be explicitly be given in the constitution and can’t exercise their
authority beyond that, whereas the residual power rest with the cantons. This
power dynamics hasn’t changed much even in the new constitution. The
relationship between different level of government in Switzerland has been
marked by co-operation and this co-operation has evolved strongly due to the
globalization and liberalization. The New constitution encourages sharing of state
power rather than self-autonomy by integration the cantons and communes in
national policy. Article 44 preaches the principle of integrity, brotherhood and
fraternity by encouraging each level of government to assist each other to fulfill
their duties and to resolve issues through democratic machineries. Executive
federalism has become a constitutional principle due to the incorporation of
Article 46. Previously, it wasn’t explicit that the cantonal law has to be in
consonance with the federal law but now it is due to Article 49, which explicitly
states that every cantonal law has to be in line along with the federal law. The
New constitution has put each level of government under an obligation to ensure
federalism is been abided by, brotherhood, fraternity and diversity of the country
is been respected and ensured. The federal government has to respect the
autonomy of the cantons and can only interfere with the canton’s autonomous
status through a regulation to ensure the integrity of the nation is maintained.

24
The Federal Constitution of Swiss Confederation, 2000 art 55.

17
CHAPTER 4: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN INDIAN AND
SWITZERLAND FEDERAL STRUCTURE

18
Abraham Lincoln has summarized democracy in a concrete way by stating it as a government
of the people, by the people and for the people. It means a government which works for the
interest of the people, and the people play an important role in their governance through
elected representatives.
Democracy can be further divided into a direct form of democracy and an indirect form. The
Indirect democracy people take part in their governance through their elected representatives,
India has such kind of democracy. For instance, the MLAs, MPs and MLCs who are the part
of the legislature are elected by the people. In direct democracy, people take part in their
governance by actively participating in the decision making of the government, this type of
democracy exist in Switzerland. In Switzerland, the citizens can use the democratic
mechanism of Referendum and Initiatives to participate in the legislative process.
Federation is of two types: Holding together federation and coming together federation. In
coming together federation, the independent states come together to form a larger unit, where
all the constituent units and the federal government seems to have an equal power.
Switzerland is based on such a model of federation; all the cantons have come together to
form a bigger unit while preserving their autonomous nature. In holding together federation,
the power or authority of governance is divided into central government and the constituent
units of the country, the central government here has more power as compared to the state
government and the state government often devoid of sovereignty to a certain extent. India is
based on such kind of model, where the central government has been designated more power
of governance than the state government.
The executive branch- In India, the President is the nominal head of the executive, thereby
elected not directly by the people, but by the electoral college through proportional
representation system by means of single transferable vote. The real power of the executive
lies with the Council of minister with the Prime minister as its head, the PM is the generally
the head of the ruling party. It’s the PM in the country who has the entire authority of the
government. Thus, we can say India follow Parliamentary form of government. Whereas
Switzerland neither follows the ideal parliamentary governance nor presidential governance.
It takes the elements of both, for instance the Federal council (the executive branch) is elected
by both the houses of the Parliament, reflecting the parliamentary form of government and
once elected the federal council is independent of the Parliament. The Federal council has 7
members, representation the 4 major political parties of the country, every member is equal in
power as well in status, the President is just the representor of the government. The president
holds the office for 1 year and the next president has to be the one from a different party than
that of the last president. This ensures the proper representation of each party in the country.
Power sharing between the different levels of the government- In India, the center has been
embodied with majority power as compared to the states. Both the center and state is
empowered to make law regarding the subject matter of concurrent list, in case of
repugnancy, the central law will prevail, and in case of residuary subject the central
government is empowered to deal with it, reflecting strong center. The state doesn’t have
much political autonomy. Regarding the new state creation, altering the boundaries of the
existing state borders, the Parliament is empowered to do it by simple majority in ordinary
piece of legislation. Article 356 empowers the President to proclaim presidential rule in a
state if constitutional machinery fails there and he can authorize the Parliament to take over

19
the state legislature in such a situation. The center plays an important role in the appointment
and removal of high dignitaries like the Governor, judges of the High court of respective
state, and even the members of the All-India Services are recruited and appointed the UPSC
(the central government influence) thus making such members of the services being stalwart
of the Centre even though they are a part of the state’s executive branch. Statutory grants and
discretionary grants are provided to the states by the center. Therefore, its often said that
India has a strong unitary tendency. On the other hand, Switzerland, a confederation, where
the cantons (the second level of government), has maintained their strong political autonomy,
by having their own constitution (whereas in Indian federalism, the state doesn’t have their
own constitution) with a requisite that it needs to abide the principles embedded in the federal
constitution. The cantons have more autonomy in their legislative sphere regarding matters
like financial matters, taxes. The autonomy level increases as one go down the three level of
government in the above-mentioned country.
Amendment of the constitution- In India for the constitutional amendments, there are two
ways for it, the first process requires the special majority of the parliament and the second
one requiring special majority with ratification by half of the total states. And there are
certain provisions which requires simple majority of the Parliament. Whereas in Switzerland,
people participate directly in the process of amending the constitution, urgent federal law
exceeding one year validity. Through the direct democracy machinery, like initiatives, people
can propose changes to the constitution, by getting requisite number of signatures. Popular
initiatives are applicable to even general ordinary law.
The Judiciary- The Indian judicial system follows a hierarchy, where the Supreme court of
India is at the apex, then the High Courts at each state, and lower courts at the municipal and
district level. Article 14125 provides an authority to the judgement of the supreme court over
the lower courts. The judicial appointment: the CJI of India is appointed by the President
after consulting the judges of SC and HCs and the other judges of SC is appointed by the
President after consultation with the CJI and other judges of SC and HCs as deem necessary.
According to Article 217,26 CJs of HCs are appointed by the President after consulting the
CJI and the Governor of the state concerned. In Switzerland, there is a dual judicial system,
the federal court being the appellate court for federal law matter and every canton having its
own judicial system. The federal court act as a guardian of the constitution against the
cantons and ensures that due process of law and constitutional principles are respected by the
cantonal law. Cantons have enough power to organize their own judicial system, hierarchy
and matters ancillary to it. Thereby, every canton has a different judicial system, like in some
cantons the appointment of judges is done by the people itself whereas in some cases, it’s the
government who does the appointment

25
The Constitution of India, 1950 art 141.
26
The Constitution of India, 1950 art 217

20
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
India and Switzerland, both have certain elements common to them, like the diversity of
people its accommodating leading to different religion, linguistic group, ethnicities living
together in a country. Both the countries have an underlying principle of federalism in their
governance, yet if we one looks at the governance of the mentioned countries, its different.
India, being densely populated follows indirect democracy, parliamentary form of
government, centralizing tendency in its governance while Switzerland follows a Direct
democracy, has a palate of both the parliamentary and presidential form of government, with
a decentralizing tendency.
The problems faced by both the countries are quite different owing to the nature of
governance. Like in India, there is an inherent biasness towards the center leading to center
trying to overpower the state politics and thereby streamlining the federal structure and the
nation’s policy. Over the years, the state political parties have resisted towards the over
centralizing tendency by the center and tried to assert its autonomy and have succeed in few
cases. There is a need for proper balancing of centralization and decentralization, as going to
the both extremes would lead to the incapacitate of federalism in India. There is a need for
reviewing the Governor’s role in the state as over the years they have tried to enforce the
center’s view on the state, creating center dominance, the Inter-state council need to be
strengthened to ensure the better functioning of center -state, empower the local self-
government to secure federalism at the grass root level. Various committees and commissions
like Sarkaria Commissions, Administrative Reform Commission, Rajmannar Commission,
Anandpur Sahib Resolution, National Commission to review the working of the Constitution
and Punchhi commission have been set up to improve the center -state relation, and many of
the recommendations have been fulfilled. Some of the recommendations which could
strengthen the center-state relations- Amendment of Article 355 and 356 which gives
enormous power to the center, the center should bring only the troubled area under its rule
rather than the entire state. This emergency shouldn’t exceed the period of 3 months. There
should be National Integration Council regarding the internal security matter. In Switzerland,
there is decentralization, which affects the streamlining the national policy, as cantons have
more power and autonomy and over the time this can affect the governance as different group
of people resides there. Clubbing few of the cantons can be a solution to ensure the
cooperation between the center and state and to ensure the streamlining of the policies
nationwide. Group of cantons can refrain from the implementation of the decision taken by
the council of states regarding constitutional amendments and legislation due to double
majority requirement of votes, this can refrain the country from evolving and bringing
notable changes to the country’s welfare. Switzerland’s federal structure has few
shortcomings, but it has helped the country over the years to grow and evolve. There is a
need for co-operation and the political players at all level of government to utilize the
institutional mechanism in an effective way to overcome the shortcoming. The revision of
constitution allows the people of the country to adjust the fundamental principle of
governance according to the need of the people.
Comparative analysis of two country’s help in understanding one’s structure, shortcoming
and what could be implemented in each other’s system for efficient governance. Like in
India, people’s participation is indirect but through making their presence felt through
voicing their opinion, electing the suitable candidates would help them be a part of the

21
decision making in a more effective way. Its has been often seen that the there is a
contradiction between the central and the state policy, and the central policy prevails, thus the
center while making a policy should consider the implication it would have on the concerned
state and make a better coordination with the states. The federal council which represents the
four major political party of the country, each member having same power and the president
only represents the government can somehow be included in the Indian governance according
to the situation to ensure the executive in India is not politically motivated the entire time. In
Switzerland, where the canton autonomy is more and there is decentralization, the
centralization tendency of India could be adopted according to the need of the Switzerland.
There is a need for providing more power to the center to ensure the streamlining the policies.

22
 BIBLIOGRPHAY
BOOKS
 Jain MP, Indian Constitutional law (Justice Jasti Chamleshwar and Justice Dama Seshadri
Naidu eds, 8th edn, LexisNexis, 2018)

ARTICLES
 M.G. Khan, ‘Federal system in India and Switzerland and Recent trends’ (2009) 70
The Indian Journal of Political Science.
 Wolf Linder, ‘Federalism: The case of Switzerland’, (2013) 1 No. 3 International
Relations and Diplomacy.
 Ambar Kumar Ghosh, ‘The paradox of ‘Centralized Federalism’: An analysis of
challenges to India’s federal design (2020) 272 Observer Research foundation

23