Federal System

Political science classifies governments based on how power is distributed between the national and regional tiers.

Unitary Government: All governing authority is concentrated at the national level. Regional governments, where they exist, function as subordinates — their powers are not constitutionally guaranteed but are delegated by the centre. Examples: Britain, France, Japan, China, Italy, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Spain.

Federal Government: Powers are constitutionally divided between the national government and the regional governments. Both levels operate independently within their assigned domains. Neither can encroach upon the sphere of the other except through constitutional means. Examples: USA, Switzerland, Australia, Canada, Russia, Brazil, Argentina.

In a federal setup, the national government is called the Federal, Central, or Union government; the regional units are called states or provinces.

Comparative Features at a Glance

---

The word 'federation' derives from the Latin foedus, meaning 'treaty' or 'agreement'. A federation is a new political entity formed through a compact among constituent units, which are variously called states (USA), cantons (Switzerland), provinces (Canada), or republics (Russia).

Two Modes of Federal Formation

1. Integration (Coming Together): Smaller, militarily or economically weak independent states voluntarily merge into a larger union for collective strength. The United States (1787) is the classic model — originally 13 states, now 50. The US is the world's first and oldest federation, formed after the American Revolution (1775–83).

2. Disintegration (Holding Together): A large unitary state devolves power to its provinces to accommodate regional aspirations and promote administrative efficiency. Canada (1867) is the example — originally 4 provinces, now 10.

---

The framers of the Indian Constitution chose a federal structure for two core reasons:

• Geographic scale: India's vast territory made governance through a purely centralised system impractical.
• Socio-cultural diversity: A pluralistic society required constitutional accommodation of regional identities and needs.

Crucially, the term 'federation' does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. Article 1 describes India simply as a 'Union of States'.

Dr B R Ambedkar explained this choice: the phrase 'Union of States' signals two things:

1. India's federation was not formed through an agreement among pre-existing sovereign states (unlike the USA).
2. States have no right to secede — the Union is indestructible.

India vs USA vs Canada

India's federal design follows the Canadian model, not the American one. The Canadian model is notable for a strong centre. India resembles Canada in three specific ways:

• Mode of formation (disintegration/holding together)
• Preference for the term 'Union'
• Strong centralising tendency — more powers vest in the Centre than in the states

---

1. Dual Polity

The Constitution creates two independent tiers of governance — the Union at the national level and the States at the regional level. Each tier derives its authority directly from the Constitution and exercises sovereign power within its assigned domain. The Union handles defence, foreign affairs, currency, and communications; states manage public order, agriculture, health, and local government.

2. Written Constitution

India's Constitution is not only written but is the longest written constitution in the world. Originally it had a Preamble, 395 Articles (in 22 Parts), and 8 Schedules. As of 2016, it has approximately 465 Articles (in 25 Parts) and 12 Schedules. It precisely defines the structure, powers, and functions of both levels of government, minimising jurisdictional ambiguity.

3. Division of Powers

The Seventh Schedule divides legislative subjects into three lists:

• Union List: 100 subjects (originally 97) — exclusive to Parliament
• State List: 61 subjects (originally 66) — exclusive to state legislatures
• Concurrent List: 52 subjects (originally 47) — both can legislate; Central law prevails in case of conflict
• Residuary powers (subjects not in any list) vest with the Centre (unlike the USA where residuary powers go to states)

4. Supremacy of the Constitution

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any law — Central or state — that violates constitutional provisions is void. The Supreme Court and High Courts exercise judicial review to strike down such laws. All organs of government at both levels must function within constitutionally prescribed limits.

5. Rigid Constitution

Provisions concerning the federal structure — Centre-State relations and judicial organisation — can only be amended through a joint effort of the Centre and the states. This requires:

• A special majority of Parliament (2/3 of members present and voting AND majority of total membership of each House)
• Ratification by at least half of the state legislatures

6. Independent Judiciary

The Constitution establishes an independent Supreme Court with two key roles:

• Protecting constitutional supremacy through judicial review
• Adjudicating disputes between the Centre and states or between states

Safeguards for judicial independence include security of tenure for judges and fixed, non-reducible service conditions.

7. Bicameralism

Parliament consists of two Houses:

• Rajya Sabha (Upper House): Represents the states of the federation
• Lok Sabha (Lower House): Represents the people of India as a whole

The Rajya Sabha maintains federal balance by protecting state interests against undue central encroachment, even though it is the less powerful chamber.

---

The Indian Constitution incorporates a substantial number of features that lean towards a unitary or centralised character, distinguishing it from classical federal systems.

1. Strong Centre

The power distribution heavily favours the Centre:

• The Union List has more subjects and the more important ones
• The Centre has overriding authority on the Concurrent List
• Residuary powers rest with the Centre (unlike the USA where they vest in states)

2. States Not Indestructible

Indian states have no right to territorial integrity. Parliament can, by a simple majority (not special majority), alter the area, boundaries, or name of any state — unilaterally. This makes India "an indestructible Union of destructible states", contrasted with the USA described as "an indestructible Union of indestructible states".

3. Single Constitution

In most federations, states have their own constitutions. In India, there is one Constitution for both the Centre and the states. The exception was Jammu and Kashmir, which had its own state Constitution by virtue of Article 370.

4. Flexibility of the Constitution

Despite the rigid provisions noted above, the bulk of the Constitution can be amended by Parliament alone — either by simple or special majority — without requiring state ratification. Moreover, the power to initiate a constitutional amendment lies exclusively with Parliament. In the USA, states can also propose amendments.

5. No Equality of State Representation

In the Rajya Sabha, states are represented proportionally by population, with representation ranging from 1 to 31 seats. In the American Senate, every state — regardless of size — gets exactly 2 seats, making it 100 members total. Equal representation in the upper house is a safeguard for smaller states in classical federalism.

6. Emergency Provisions

The Constitution provides for three types of emergencies — national (Article 352), state/President's Rule (Article 356), and financial (Article 360). During emergencies, the Centre becomes all-powerful and state autonomy is effectively suspended. This transforms the federal structure into a unitary one without formal constitutional amendment — a feature unique to India among federal systems.

7. Single Citizenship

Despite a dual polity, India (like Canada) provides only one citizenship — Indian citizenship. There is no separate state citizenship. Citizens enjoy identical rights across the country irrespective of their state of origin or residence. In contrast, the USA, Switzerland, and Australia have dual citizenship (national + state).

8. Integrated Judiciary

India has a unified court system with the Supreme Court at the apex and state High Courts below it. This single hierarchy enforces both Central and state laws. The USA maintains a parallel dual court system — federal courts for federal law, state courts for state law.

9. All-India Services

Beyond separate Central and state services, India has All-India Services (IAS, IPS, IFS) common to both. Officers are recruited and trained by the Centre, which also retains ultimate control. This violates the federal principle of separation of administrative machinery between the two tiers.

10. Integrated Audit Machinery

The Comptroller and Auditor-General (CAG) audits accounts of both the Central and state governments. However, the CAG is appointed and removed by the President without consulting the states. This restricts the financial autonomy of states. The American Comptroller-General has no jurisdiction over state accounts.

11. Parliament's Authority Over State List

Even without a formal emergency, Parliament can legislate on State List subjects if the Rajya Sabha passes a resolution to that effect in the national interest (Article 249). This extends Parliament's legislative competence without amending the Constitution.

12. Appointment of Governor

The Governor, as the head of the state, is appointed by the President and serves at the President's pleasure. The Governor also functions as an agent of the Centre, providing a channel through which the Centre exercises supervisory control over states. The American Constitution provides for elected state heads — India adopted the Canadian appointive model.

13. Integrated Election Machinery

The Election Commission — constituted by the President — conducts elections to both Central and state legislatures. States have no role in its formation or in the removal of its members. The USA maintains separate electoral machineries for federal and state elections.

14. Veto Over State Bills

The Governor can reserve certain state bills for the President's consideration. The President can withhold assent not just initially but even on a second reference — exercising an absolute veto (not merely a suspensive veto) over state legislation. No such provision exists in the USA or Australia, where states are autonomous within their legislative domains.

---

Scholars Who Emphasise the Unitary Tilt

• K C Wheare called it "quasi-federal" — a unitary state with subsidiary federal features, rather than a federal state with subsidiary unitary features.
• K Santhanam identified two drivers of centralisation: (i) financial dependence of states on the Centre, and (ii) the dominance of the Planning Commission over state developmental processes. He observed that India functioned practically as a unitary state.

Scholars Who Defend Its Federal Character

• Paul Appleby: Characterised the Indian system as "extremely federal".
• Morris Jones: Termed it "bargaining federalism".
• Ivor Jennings: Described it as "a federation with a strong centralising tendency" — mainly federal, with unique safeguards for national unity.
• Alexandrowicz: Held that India is a "sui generis" (unique) case.
• Granville Austin: Called it "cooperative federalism" — while the Centre is strong, states are not reduced to administrative agencies. He termed it "a new kind of federation to meet India's peculiar needs".

Ambedkar's Position

In the Constituent Assembly, Ambedkar stated that both the Union and the states are created by and derive their authority from the Constitution — neither is subordinate to the other in its assigned sphere. He also acknowledged that the Constitution "avoids the tight mould of federalism" and can operate as both unitary and federal depending on circumstances.

Supreme Court: Bommai Case (1994)

In S R Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court declared that the Constitution is federal and that federalism is a basic feature of the Constitution. The Court held:

• Greater Central power does not make states mere appendages
• States have independent constitutional existence and are supreme within their sphere
• Emergency provisions and other central overrides are exceptions, not the rule
• Indian federalism is a matter of principle, not administrative convenience

The Core Compromise

Indian federalism represents a balance between two competing imperatives:

1. Normal federal operation — states enjoy autonomy within their constitutional spheres
2. National integrity — the Centre can act decisively under exceptional circumstances

---

Despite structural centralisation, Indian political life reflects genuine federal dynamics:

• Territorial disputes between states (e.g., Maharashtra and Karnataka over Belgaum)
• Inter-state river water disputes (e.g., Karnataka vs Tamil Nadu over Cauvery)
• Rise of regional parties and their electoral dominance in states
• Creation of new states to fulfil regional aspirations (e.g., Mizoram, Jharkhand)
• States demanding greater financial devolution from the Centre
• States asserting autonomy against central interference
• Supreme Court restricting arbitrary use of Article 356 (President's Rule)

---

• India is a Union of States (Article 1), not a federation — the term 'federation' does not appear in the Constitution
• India follows the Canadian model — strong centre, holding-together formation
• The Seventh Schedule: Union List (100), State List (61), Concurrent List (52) — residuary with Centre
• India is an "indestructible Union of destructible states" — Parliament can alter state boundaries by simple majority
• Single citizenship in India (unlike USA, Switzerland, Australia)
• Integrated judiciary in India vs dual court system in USA
• Absolute veto by President over state bills — no equivalent in USA or Australia
• Bommai case (1994): Federalism is a basic feature of the Constitution
• K C Wheare: Quasi-federal | Granville Austin: Cooperative federalism | Ivor Jennings: Federation with strong centralising tendency
• Emergency provisions convert the federal structure into a unitary one without formal amendment
• Governor is appointed by the President (Canadian model) — not elected (unlike USA)