This article has been written by Ishika Sharma, a 1st-year student of Gujarat National Law University.

Meaning 

A federal system of governance divides the nation’s authority between the national government and its state governments. It assigns specific duties to each sector so that the state government and the federal government each have their own tasks to do.

Nature of Indian federalism

India is not referred to as a federation in its constitution. However, India is described as a “Union of States” in Article 1 of its constitution. This indicates that India is a union made up of several states that are an essential component of it. States in this situation are unable to leave the union. They lack the authority to leave the union. The states or forming units have the freedom to come out of the union in a real federation.

India combines the feature of a unitary government as also that of a federal government, and thus it can be labelled “quasi-federal”. 

A quasi-federal form of governance divides the nation’s power between the central and state governments; however, under a quasi-federal system, the central government is given greater authority than the state governments. The central government may intervene in a state government’s decision in a quasi-central government system.

Federal features of the Indian constitution: 

Power Division: One of the key aspects of the federal constitution is this. The constitution itself establishes the division of powers. The powers that belong to the union and the states are listed in the constitution. The federal government and state governments each have separate powers. Union or central issues are matters of national importance like defence, foreign policy, the nation’s currency, etc., whereas states oversee matters like health and land agriculture.

Supremacy of Constitution: The legislative, executive and judicial branches of Indian democracy are considered to derive the majority of their authority from the constitution. For democracy to be coordinated and run well, the constitution must be supreme.

Written Constitution: The federal constitution must be expressed in writing and be clear. The division of powers between the union and the states would be extremely challenging without a codified constitution. 

The rigidity of the Constitution: If the constitution is extremely strict, it can be changed with ease. It is also simple to sustain its dominance since it is strict. A simple majority, special majority, or special majority with a ramification of the Union may be used to amend the constitution.

Bi-cameral legislature: One of the key components of Indian Federalism is the bi-cameral legislature. The lower house (Lok Sabha) and upper house make up the Indian Parliament (Rajya Sabha). The two houses must both approve any revisions. Only a small number of states also have a two-camera legislature. Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Bihar are a few examples of these states.

Unitary features of the Indian Constitution

Constitutional Flexibility: Both rigidity and flexibility are included in the constitution. It is simple to change some constitutional clauses. If the revisions aim to alter some facets of India’s federalism, it is difficult to implement such changes.

More power with Centre: The Union List guarantees additional powers under the constitution. The parliament has the authority to enact legislation on topics on the Concurrent List that may, in some cases, supersede laws passed by state legislatures. 

Emergency powers: Emergency powers are granted to the centre. The centre has more influence over states when an emergency is declared. The states’ independence is threatened by this. Section 356 of the constitution talks about President’s rule. 

Veto over state bills: Certain types of measures may be set aside for the president’s consideration by a state governor. On these measures, the president has unrestricted veto power. Even in the second attempt, after the state legislature has brought the law back for reconsideration, he has the option of rejecting it. Federalist ideals are broken by this clause.

Appointment of the Governor: The central government is represented in each state by its governor. The governor is chosen by the centre, not the state government.

Important cases related to the Indian system of governance:

State of West Bengal v. Union of India: It was the first important case in which the apex Court thoroughly explored this problem. The exercise of sovereign rights by the Indian states was the key problem in this case. The sovereign capacity of states as separate legal entities as well as the legislative authority of the Parliament to implement a statute for the forced purchase by the Union of land and other properties vested in or possessed by the state were also reviewed. The highest court ruled that the Indian Constitution did not establish an absolute federalism idea.

As a result, Article 13 of the Indian Constitution will cease to be a concern and may even be overlooked because even routine laws would be exempt from judicial review because they were approved in accordance with an unchallengeable constitutional amendment. It was mentioned in a landmark case that the Supreme Court of India determined in [Minerva Mills Ltd. & others V/s Union of India; AIR 1980 SC 1789].

Pradeep Jain V. Union of India: The Apex Court stated that India is not a federal State in the classic meaning of the word in Pradeep Jain V. Union of India. It is not a covenant of independent States that have united to construct a federation by reneging on unquestionably federal principles. The Supreme Court reaffirmed in Ganga Ram Moolchandani v. State of Rajasthan that the Indian Constitution is fundamentally federal in form and is distinguished by the traditional features of a federal system, including supremacy of the Constitution, a division of power between the Union and States, and the existence of an independent judiciary. An analogous viewpoint was stated by the Supreme Court in ITC LTD v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee.

The Supreme Court declared that all parts of the constitution, including the Fundamental Rights, can be modified in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1976) case. The fundamental elements of the constitution, such as secularism, democracy, federalism, and the separation of powers, cannot be changed by the Parliament. This judgement, which is sometimes referred to as the “Basic structural doctrine,” is largely recognised as a major milestone in Indian history.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India decision: The Supreme Court expanded the doctrine’s relevance as being superior to any parliamentary act in the 1978 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India decision. The ruling states that if a parliamentary act breaches the fundamental principles of the constitution, it cannot be regarded as a law. This important fundamental rights guarantee was hailed as a singular illustration of judicial independence in upholding the sanctity of fundamental rights. The presence of Fundamental Rights, which can only be changed by a constitutional amendment, serves as a check on not only the executive branch but also the legislators of the federal and state governments. In order to protect public safety and national security, the declaration of an emergency may result in a temporary suspension of the freedoms granted by Article 19 (such as the freedoms of expression, assembly, and movement).

Aishwarya Says:

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to secondinnings.hr@gmail.com

Join our  Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening