RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL

LAW UNIVERSITY LUCKNOW

JURISPRUDENCE

Final Draft
On
FEDERALISM IN INDIA

SUBMITTED TO:

SUBMITTED BY:

Mr. Manwendra Kumar Tiwari

Sakshi

Asst. Professor

Roll no. 111

RMLNLU

Sem.: - 4th

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
A major research project like this is never the work of anyone alone. Firstly, I would like to
thank my teacher Mr. Manwendra Kumar Tiwari, for giving me such a golden opportunity to
show my skills and capability through this project.
This project is the result of the extensive ultra-pure study, hard work and labour, put into to
make it worth reading. This project has been completed through the generous co-operation of
various persons, my teacher, and my seniors, who, in their different potentials helped me a lot
in giving the finishing touch to the project.
This project couldnt be completed without the help of my universitys library Dr. Madhu
Limaye Library and its internet facility.

Thank you..

TABLE OF CONTENETS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Introduction 4
Provisions of the constitution..9
Whether Indian constitution is federal11
Whether Indian constitution is unitary13
Whether Indian constitution is quasi-federal...20
Conclusion22
Bibliography.25

INTRODUCTION
This project talks about the concept, nature of federalism in India. Some argues that
federalism is basic feature of the constitution so it cannot be changed. There is also debate
about the nature of federalism in India. Debate about the nature is that it might be quasifederal, federal, or unitary federalism. Some scholars argued that it is quasi-federal others that
it has more inclination toward unitary feature given more power to centre instead of same
power to centre and states.
3

Federalism is a form of government in which the sovereign authority of political power is

divided between the various units. This form of government is also called a "federation" or a
"federal state" in the common parlance. These units are Centre, state and panchayat or the
municipalities. The centre also is called union.
The original federal design of 1950 drew its structure from the British Government of India
Act, 1935, and its inspiration from the idea of centralized planned development. 1 Anxious
that this new idea of India should not fall apart, the 1950 constitution gave extensive
powers to the Union legislature and executive to keep the nation together, underpinning a
degree of dominance for the Union government, centred in New Delhi, which went well
beyond the imperatives of economic planning.2
Federalism is a basic feature of the Constitution of India in which the Union of India is
permanent and indestructible. Both the Centre and the States are co-operating and
coordinating institutions having independence and ought to exercise their respective powers
with mutual adjustment, respect, understanding and accommodation. Tension and conflict of
the interests of the Centre and the respective units is an integral part of federalism. Prevention
as well as amelioration of conflicts is necessary. Thus, the Indian federalism was devised with
a strong Centre. Federalism with a strong Centre was inevitable as the framers of the Indian
Constitution were aware that there were economic disparities as several areas of India were
economically as well as industrially far behind in comparison to others. The nation was
committed to a socio economic revolution not only to secure the basic needs of the common
man and economic unity of the country but also to bring about a fundamental change in the
structure of Indian society in accordance with the egalitarian principles. With these
considerations in mind the Constitution makers devised the Indian federation with a strong
Union.3

1 On the constitutional origins of Indias federal structures, see Granville Austin, The Indian
constitution:Cornerstone of a Nation (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1966), 186-264; B, Shiva Rao, ed.,
The framing of Indias Constitution-A Study (Bombay: N.M. Tripathi Ltd. 1968), 592-707.

2 Journal of Business Management & Social Sciences Research (JBM&SSR) ISSN No: 2319-5614 Volume 3,
No.9, September 2014; p.no. 1

3 Journal of Business Management & Social Sciences Research (JBM&SSR) ISSN No: 2319-5614
Volume 3, No.9, September 2014; p.no. 1
4

One extreme point of view is that India is definitely unfederal. As Prf. K.P. Mukherjee
contend that Indian constitution is definitely unfederal or a unitary constitution.4
The other extreme view is of designating India as extremely federal. 5Likewise, C.H.
Alexandrowicz opines- It is undoubtedly a federation in which the attributes of sovereignty
are shared between the Centre and the States.6
In between these two interpretations, we have a plethora of moderate interpreters. Granville
Austin advocates the thesis of Co-operative federalism.7 He believes that the very concept
of co-operative federalism implies a strong Centre; provincial governments are largely
administrative agencies for central policies.

CONCEPT OF FEDERALISM
The Constitution of India, in Article 1 states, "India, i.e. Bharat, shall be a Union of States.
Federalism is that feature of the constitution in which subjects on which power can be
exercised is divided between centre and provinces. Whease has given 3 required criteria for
federal government and these are: 1. Written and rigidity. 2. Independent distribution of
power between centre and states. 3. An independent judiciary. But the constitution has no
mentions about the world federal.8
A federal system involves certain essential characteristics and they are very much present in
the Indian Constitution.
1. WRITTEN AND RIGID CONSTITUTION: Indian constitution is written and largest
constitution of the world. Article 368(2) proviso talk about rigidity of the constitution.
Whenever you have to amend distribution of power then it is not by parliament alone
4 K.P. Mukherjee, Is India a Federation? Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol. XV, No. 4 July- Sep., 1954,
p.177.

5 Paul H. Appleby, Public Administration in India, 1953, p. 51.

6 C.H. Alexandrowicz, Constitutional Developments in India, 1957, pp. 168-169.
7 Jayal, NirajaGopal&PratapBhanu Mehta eds., (2011) The Oxford Companion to Politics in India, Oxford
University Press, New Delhi.

8 The Indian Journal of Political Science Vol. L XVIII, No. 4, Oct.- Dee., 2007
5

but also by legislation of state. Article 368 provides 3 amendment procedures. It is

very clearly laid down in the Constitution that no organ of state can transgress its area
of authority. It is rigid so far as the amendment of federal is concerned.
2. INDEPENDENT DISTRIBUTION OF POWER: Article 246 talks about the
distribution of subject on which power can be exercise by different organs. Article
246 (1) talks about exclusively power of parliament of List I. Article 246 (3) talks
about exclusive power of state legislature of List II. Article 246 (2) talks about the
subject on which both parliament and state legislature can exercise their power. It
contains the subject on which constitutional assembly was not sure to put in which
definitive list. Also if subject is not there in any of the list then parliament get
exclusive power to pass law on this matter under article 248.
3. INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY: Whenever there is clash between federal interest and
provincial interest, then judiciary must act impartially. Now after 1992, judiciary is
independent of executive control. Another requirement is the existence of an
independent judiciary to act as the guardian of the Constitution. The Indian
constitution provides for the Supreme Court with its original jurisdiction to settle the
disputes between the Centre and the States and the States interests. It has the word to
interpret the constitution and its verdict is final.
4. BICAMERAL LEGISLATURE: The Indian Parliament has two Houses, with the
Upper House Known as the RajyaSabha and the Lower House being known as the
LokSabha.
Federalisation was a British political contrivance imposed upon the Indian people for the
realization of their imperial objectives and the Constituent Assembly borrowed both the
concept of federalism and the scheme of distribution of powers in form of three lists from the
Government of India Act, 1935 with minor departures, here and there.9
The chief mark of federalism lies in the partition of the legislative and executive authority
between centre and the units by the constitution. This is principle embodied in our
constitution. A federation is a compromise between regional autonomy and national

9 Satya Prakash Dash, The Indian Journal of Political Science Vol. L XVIII, No. 4, Oct.- Dee.,
2007
6

integration. Both the national and the state Government owe their existence and drive their
powers from the federal constitution and both are separate legal entities known to the law.10
Federalism constitutes a complex governmental mechanism for governance of a country. It
has been evolved to bind into one political union several autonomous, distinct, separate and
disparate political entities or administrative units. It seeks to reconcile unity with multiplicity,
centralisation with decentralisation and nationalism with localism. The two levels of
government divide and share the totality of governmental function and powers between
themselves.11
There is lot of debate about the nature of the federalism constitution. Some argued that it is
federal constitution in which power is divided between centre and state legislature; other
argued that it is quasi-federal constitution where powers are not exclusively divided between
centre and state legislature but it is depend on both authorities. Some also argued that it is
unitary form of federalism where all power is in the hand of central legislature, even though
power is also given to state legislature by provision. They are arguing that it is transformation
form decentralisation to centralisation.
Various authors have interpreted the Indian federal system in varied ways. However, the
Supreme Court of India, in Special Reference of 1956 (AIR 1965 SC 745, 762) stated,
"Although there has been considerable controversy whether India is or is not a federation and
although some writers have called it 'quasi federal', it would seem that essentially the Indian
Constitution is a federal one".12
It is based on the interpretation on provisions of constitution to decide the nature of
constitution. The constitution of India deserved to be interpreted, language permitting, in a
manner that does not whittle down the power of the state legislature and preserve the
federalism while also upholding the central supremacy as contemplated by some of its
articles.13
10 Dr. Durga Das Basu, comparative Federalism, 2 nd edition, 2008
11 Id.
12 Satya Prakash Dash, The Indian Journal of Political Science Vol. L XVIII, No. 4, Oct.- Dee.,
2007
13 ITC Ltd. v. Agricultural Produce market committee, (2002) 9 SCC 232,266 : AIR
2002 SC 852
7

The Constitution of India, in Part XI, Articles 245-263 enumerates the legis7lative and
administrative relations in Chapter 1 and 2 respectively between the Union and the States.
The division of powers and responsibilities between the Union and the States are detailed in
Seventh Schedule of the Constitution in the form of three lists viz. 1 .Union List, 2. State list
and 3.Concurrent list and this also is reflected in Article 246 of the Constitution. The
distribution of powers is on the same pattern as in the Canadian system, except the inclusion
of the Concurrent list which is on the lines of the Australian Constitution.
In S.R.Bommai v. Union of India14, a constitutional bench compromising 9 judges of the SC
considered the nature of federalism under the constitution of India. Justice A.M.Ahmdi:
there is no significant mention of expression like federalism or federal in the
constitution, parliaments power under article 2 and 3, extraordinary power to meet
emergency, residuary power conferred by article 248, power to amend constitution, power to
issue direction to state, concept of single citizenship, the set-up of integrated judiciary etc.
have led constitutional experts to doubt the appropriateness of the appellation federal to the
Indian constitution.
Some provisions of onstitution are interpreted in the way to show that this federal structure is
more unitary structure rather than federal structure. But one can also interpret these
provisions in a way to show that this federal structure is actually federal and not quasifederal. Now here we would look whether this is federal or quasi-federal or unitary.

14 AIR 1994 SC 1918

8

PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUION

Articles 245-254 of chapter XI help in understanding the nature of federalism in India. These
articles are about distribution of power between centre and state.
Under article 245 (1), parliament may make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of
India, and the legislature of a state may make laws for the whole or any part of the state.
This shows that power has been given to both parliament and state legislature.
Article 246 of the Indian constitution provides the exclusive power of state and centre
legislation. Article 246(1) gives exclusive power to centre legislature, article 246(3) gives
exclusive power to state legislature. Article 246(2) gives power to both centre and state
legislature to make laws on the subjects those are in control of both parliament and state
legislature. Clause (4) entitles parliament to make laws with respect to matters enumerated in
the state list for any territory which is not included in state.
Article 248 of the constitution gives exclusive power to parliament to make laws on subjects
those are not in state list or concurrent list.
Article 249 of the constitution gives power to parliament to legislate laws with respect to
matter in the state list in the national interest. If the council of states passed a resolution by
not less than 2/3 of the members present and voting and declaring that it is necessary or
expedient in the national interest that parliament should make laws with respect to any matter
enumerated in the state list specified in the resolution, then parliament be lawful for
parliament to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of the India with respect to
the matter while the resolution remain in force.15
Article 250 gives power to parliament to legislate in the matter of state list if there is
proclamation of emergency in any state is in operation. Parliament in this condition has
power to make laws for whole or any part of the territory of India.16

15 Article 246(1)
16 Article 250
9

Article 251 of the constitution shows that parliament has more power than state legislature. If
there is conflict in the laws made by parliament under article 249 and 250 and laws made by
legislature then in this case laws made by parliament would prevail.
Under article 252, parliament has power to legislate in a field covered by the state only with
the consent of two or more states, with the provision for adoption of such legislation by any
other state.
Under article 253, Parliament has power to make any law for the whole or any part of the
territory of India for implementing any treaty, agreement or convention with any other
country or countries or any decision made at any international conference, association or
other body.
Article 254(1) of the constitution says that if there is conflict between laws made by the
parliament which parliament is competent to enact and laws made by state legislature then
laws made by parliament shall prevail and laws made by the legislature of the state shall, to
the extent of the repugnancy, be void.
Article 254(2) of the constitution, where laws made by the legislature of a state with respect
to one of the matters in the concurrent lists contains any provision repugnant to the provisions
of an earlier laws made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the
law so made by the legislature of such state shall prevail in that state if that law has reserved
for the consent of president or has received the assent of president.
But there is one exception to this rule in the proviso of same article that shall not prevent
parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law
adding to, amending repealing the law so made by the legislature of the state.

10

WHETHER INDIAN CONSTITTUION IS FEDERAL

Federal constitution is one in which power has been divided between centre and state
legislature. Along with the arguments of Indian constitution to be called as unitary and quasifederal, there are people also in favour of federal constitution. Though lot more power has
been given to central legislature but at the same time powers has been provided to state
legislature.
Under article 245 (1), parliament may make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of
India, and the legislature of a state may make laws for the whole or any part of the state.
This shows that power has been given to both parliament and state legislature.
Under article 246 also there is clear demarcation of power. Article 246 (1) gives exclusive
power of law making to parliament on the subject in List I i.e. union list. Article 246(3)
gives exclusive power to state legislature to make laws with respect to subject in the List III
i.e. state list. Article 246(2) gives power to both centre and state legislature with respect to
the subjects on List II i.e. concurrent list. So according to article 246, parliament as well as
state legislature has given power to make laws within their specified area. These articles show
the federal nature of the Indian constitution.
With the help of article 249, 250 and 252 we can say that even though power is given to
parliament but this power is subject to the consent of the state legislature. So we cannot say
that Indian constitution is not federal constitution.
The power of state legislature to make laws will be subject to the provision of article 254
wherein it has been provided that in the event of any inconsistency between the laws made by
parliament and laws made by the state legislature, the former will prevail. In view of article
254, the power of parliament to legislate with regard to matters in List III, which are dealt
with by article 246(2), is supreme.17 But this supremacy to parliament cannot give go-by to
federalism which has been held a basic structure of the constitution.18
17 Kerala state electricity board v. indian aluminium company, AIR 1976 SC 1031
18 Bomai S.R.v union of india, (1994) 3 SCC 1 : AIR 1994 SC 1919
11

It is based on the interpretation on provisions of constitution to decide the nature of

constitution. The constitution of India deserved to be interpreted, language permitting, in a
manner that does not whittle down the power of the state legislature and preserve the
federalism while also upholding the central supremacy as contemplated by some of its
articles.19
Justice K. Ramaswami: federalism envisaged in the constitution of India is the basic feature
in which the union of India is permanent within the territorial limits set in Article 1 of the
constitution and is indestructible. Neither the relative importance of the legislature entries in
schedule VII, List I and II of the constitution, nor the fiscal control by the union per se are
decisive to conclude that the constitution is unitary. The state qua the constitution is federal in
structure and independent in its exercise of legislative and executive power.20
Sawant, J: Reffering to the constitutional assembly report of ambedkar j. sawant said that he
has emphasized there that notwithstanding the fact that there are many provisions in the
constitution where under the centre has been given powers to overrides the states, our
constitution is a federal constitution. It means that the states are sovereign in the filed which
are left to them. They have a plenary authority to make any law for the peace, order and the
good governance of the state.
In India, parliament can by law form a new state, alter the size of an existing state, alter the
name of an existing state etc., and even curtail the name of an existing state, etc., and even
curtail the power, both executive and legislative by amending the constitution. That is why
constitution of India is differently described, more appropriately as quasi-federal because it
is mixture of the federal and unitary elements, leaning more toward the latter. Our
constitution combines the feature of the federation as well as of unitary system. In times of
emergency, the federal government can even be made into unitary one. But all of this flow
from the constitution itself. And federalism is the basic feature of the constitution and as these
provisions had not been considered as unconstitutional. So these provisions would not
indicate that Indian constitution is not federal one.

19 ITC Ltd. v. Agricultural Produce market committee, (2002) 9 SCC 232,266 : AIR
2002 SC 852
20 L.M.Singhvi, Constitution of India, 3rd ed.

12

INDIAN CONSTITUTION IS UNITARY

Unitary federalism is that form of federalism in which all power is in the hands of the union.
Even though powers are exercised by both states and union but according to the arguments of
the people who are in favour of unitary form of government, actual power is exercised by the
union government. It is also argued that there is too much centralization in unitary form of
government.
Article 248 of the constitution gives exclusive power to parliament to make laws on subjects
those are not in state list or concurrent list.
Article 249 and 250 gives supremacy to laws made by parliament in case of national interest.
Article 251 of the constitution shows that parliament has more power than state legislature. If
there is conflict in the laws made by parliament under article 249 and 250 and laws made by
legislature then in this case laws made by parliament would be given supremacy. It throws the
light on the unitary structure of federalism.
With the help of all these provisions (articles 249, 250,251,252, 253 and 254) we can say that
our constitution is unitary constitution and lot more power has been given to the central
legislature. Whenever there is conflict between laws made by parliament and state legislature,
supremacy has been given to central legislature and whenever there is situation like
emergency or national interest, power has been given to central legislature.
The Constitution Revision Commission 2002, in its report stated, "The principal critique of
concurrency is not that it is not required, but that it is used without consultation, that it is not
exercised to deepen inter-dependence and co-operation but to stress dominance of the Union
point of view is convinced that it is essential to institutionalize the process of consultation
between the Union and the States on legislation under the Concurrent list". 21 This report
21 The Indian Journal of Political Science Vol. L XVIII, No. 4, Oct.- Dee., 2007, p.no. 4
13

shows that there is dominance of union in power of centre and state legislature in concurrent
list under article 246 (2).
The administrative/executive power is co-extensive with the legislative powers. The
administrative relations between the Union and the States is very crisply provided in Article
256, which states, "the executive power of every State is to be exercised in such a way as to
ensure compliance with the laws made by Parliament" and, "the executive power of the
Union shall extend to the giving of such directions to a State as may appear to the
Government of India to be necessary for that purpose". Again, under Article 257, the
Constitution calls upon every State not to impede or prejudice the executive power of the
Union in that State. If any Union agency finds it difficult to function within a State, the Union
executive is empowered to issue appropriate directions to the State Government to remove all
obstacles. Directions by the Union Government to State Governments form a major category
of control, and the directives are in respect of construction and maintenance of
communications of national and military importance, railways, the welfare of scheduled
tribes, education of linguistic minorities, etc. Thus, the primary Government in India is the
Government of India and even though the State Governments are not delegates of the Union
and they derive inherent powers from the Constitution, they must heed the laws of Parliament
ar.d directions of the Union issued either under Article 256 or Article 257. If this does not
happen, punitive powers are vested in the Union Government under Article 365, which states,
"where any State has failed to comply with, or to give effect to, any directions given in the
exercise of the executive power of the Union under any of the provisions of this Constitution,
it shall be lawful for the President to hold that a situation has arisen in which the Government
of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution". If
the President is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the Government of the State
cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution, may by
proclamation assume to himself all or any of functions of the Government of the State, under
Article 356. The Union has thus been made the protector of the Constitution and any affront
to the Constitution from any quarter whatsoever will be strenuously resisted by the Union
with all the weapons at its disposal including the possibility of supplanting the State
Government altogether by means of a proclamation under Article 356, popularly known as
President's Rule.22

22 The Indian Journal of Political Science Vol. L XVIII, No. 4, Oct.- Dee., 2007, p.no. 6
14

"Fully conscious of the fissiparous tendencies in the country, the framers of the Constitution
deliberately gave more power to the Centre. And the scheme of division of powers between
the Union and the States clearly demonstrates this thinking".23 (Rath, 1 984; 39)
Brij Mohan Sharma, in his book The Republic of India, writes, "The republican Constitution
of India has been largely modelled, in the matter of distribution of power between the centre
and the units, on the Government of India Act, 1935. The latter enactment was an act passed
by the British Parliament and hence its spirit was to concentrate as much power as possible in
the Centre. This extreme form of centralisation was dictated by the unwillingness of the
foreign rulers to allow the Indians to exercise too much power in the provinces over which
central control, and, therefore, British control was to come to an end". 24 It was with these
objectives that the powers and responsibilities were divided between the Union and the
States, giving a primacy to the Union along with the residuary powers not enumerated in the
Seventh Schedule.
As both the Union and the States can legislate in Concurrent list and the Union legislation is
given primacy, "the Union has made several enactments for the sake of uniformity of laws for
the countrythis uniformity in territorial sense prevents diversity and is a protective wall
against any movement for separatist tendency or identity on the part of any particular State".25
The distribution of legislative and executive powers did not produce neat mutually exclusive
compartments because of innumerable overlaps in practice. State administrations in fact
function under the umbrella of central legislation and there are hardly any areas where some
central legislation does not exist"26. The Constitution in Article 365 also restricts the State
and, in a way compels the State to abide by the directions of the Union. The State
Governments policies must be in co-ordination with the Union Government.

23 Arora, Balveer and Mukarji, Nirmal (1992), Federalism in India, Vikas Publishing House, New
Delhi, p. 10
24 Arma, Brij Mohan, The Republic of India, Asia Publishing House.
25 The Indian Journal of Political Science Vol. L XVIII, No. 4, Oct.- Dee., 2007, p.no. 7
26 Aora, Balveer and Mukarji, Nirmal, opcit., p. 10
15

By virtue of the same entry 20 of the Concurrent List, the Union Government constituted the
Planning Commission in 1950 and the National Development Council in 1952 for an
integrated economic planning and development all over the country. Subsequently, the Union
Government enacted and implemented the Industries (Developments Regulation) Act, 1951
and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. These acts aimed to regulate and control the
establishment of new industries in India. "The Union Government under these enactments
grants licenses only when the industry conforms to the national planning system. The States
do not have the discretion as against the Union Government in the matter of opening of new
industry within their areas". Hence, the final say of establishment of new industry is vested
on the Union Government and the States have to get the clearance of the Union in this matter.
This shows that even on the subjects of the concurrent list, parliament has supremacy. This
feature shows that there is unitary federalism.
The very first two subjects in the State list are matters of concern in the context of
responsibilities between the Union and the States. The first subject is, Public order (but not
including the use of any naval, military or air force or any other armed force of the Union or
of any other force subject to the control of the Union or of any contingent or unit thereof in
aid of the civil power). The second subject is, Police (including railway and village police)
subject to the provisions of entry 2A of List I. The subject 2A of the Union List is,
"deployment of any armed force of the Union or any other force subject to the control of the
Union or any contingent or unit thereof in any State in aid of the civil power; powers,
jurisdiction, privileges and liabilities of the members of such forces while on such
deployment". Public order and police are State subjects, yet it is the constitutional duty of the
Union to protect States against internal disturbance. Article 355 states, "It shall be the duty of
the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance and to
ensure that the Government of every State in carried on in accordance with the provisions of
this Constitution".
Similarly, Ashoka Chanda is of the view that, "India is not a federal State. In the final
analysis, it is a unitary State in concept and operation" 27. These and similar other comments
were consequent due to the fact that the Union government is heavily loaded with powers and
functions than the States. Justifying the greater role of the Union, B.R. Ambedkar clarified
that, "though the country and the people may be divided into different States for convenience
27 Anda, Ashoka (1965), Federalism in India, George Allen & Unwin, p. 124
16

of administration, the country is one integrated whole, its people a single people living in a
single imperium derived from a single source. The division of power among the units is,
according to Ambedkar, more an arrangement of division of labour than distribution of
power.28
In the present times, emphasis being laid on development administration, the Union assumes
greater responsibility and plays a substantial role than the States. Many State subjects and
areas of functions, like education, health, rural and urban development, social security, etc,
are more determined by Union policies and funding. The approach paper of the Second
Administrative Reforms Commission 2006, states, "paucity of resources at State level, need
for standardisation of services, compulsions of reducing regional disparities, and the
imperatives of meeting challenges of a growing economy in the modern world have
necessarily enlarged the Union's role in these sectors". This further illustrates the significance
of the Union and the growing dependence of the States on the Union, inspite of having a
gradual maturing of federal democracy in India.
The SC in the case of state of west Bengal v union of India29 had observed that our
constitution is not of a true or a traditional patter of federalism. State of Rajasthan v. union of
India30, that speak of the conspectus of the provisions that whatever appearance of a federal
structure our constitution may have, judging by the content of the power which a number of
provisions carry with them and the use made of them, is in its operation, more unitary than
federal.
We may now refer to some characteristics and features of our constitution to demonstrate the
weak character of our federal structure and controlling hand of the centre on states in certain
matters. Some of the salient features ones are the following:31

28 Verma, S.L., (1987), Federal Authority in the Indian Political System, RBSA Publishers, Jajpur, p.
160.
29 AIR 1963 SC 1241
30 AIP 1977 SC 1361
31 State of Karnataka v. union of India, AIR 1978 SC 68(152)
17

Article 2: this article empowers the parliament by law to admit into the union, or establish
new states on such term and conditions as it thinks fit.
Article 3: the parliament may by law form new state, increase the area of any state, diminish
the area of any state and alter the boundaries of any state. All this could be done without the
consent of the state consent. The states are required to express their view within such period
as the president or central government may allow.
Article 250: while proclamation of emergency under article 354 is in operation, parliament
has power to make laws with respect to any matters enumerated in the state list.
Article 249: Power of parliament to legislate with respect to a matter in the state list in the
national interest. The only condition is that the council of states should have passed a
revolution supported by not less than two third of the members present and voting that it was
necessary or expedite in the national interest that parliament should make laws with respect to
any matter mentioned in the state list.
Article 257 (1) of the constitution provides for the control of the union over states in certain
cases. Under the provision the executive power of every state shall be so exercised as not to
impede prejudice the exercise of the executive power of the union and the executive power of
the union shall extend to the giving of such directions to a state as may appear to the
Government of India to be necessary for that purpose.
The executive power of the union shall also extend the giving of directions to a state as to the
construction and maintenance of means of communication declared to be of national or
military importance.32
Article 365 provides that where any state has failed to comply with or to give effect to any
direction given in the exercise of the executive power of the union under any of the provision
of the constitution, it shall be lawful for the president to hold that a situation has arisen in
which the government of the state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provision of
this constitution.33

32 Article 257(2)
33 Article 365
18

The executive power of every state shall be so exercised as to ensure compliance with the
laws made by parliament and any existing laws which apply in that state, and the executive
power of the union shall extend to the giving of such direction to a state as may appear to the
government of India to be necessary for that purpose.34
These provisions clearly point out and indicated that Indian constitution is unitary
constitution.
However, each state has its own governor exercising the executive power of that state. But,
the governor of a state is appointed by the president and holds office at his pleasure. Only in
some matters he has got a discretionary power but in all other the state administration is
carried on by him or in his name by or with the aid and advice of the ministers. Every action,
even of an individual minister, is the action of the whole council and is governed by the
theory of joint and collective responsibility. But the governor is there, as head of the state, the
executive and the legislature, to report to the centre about the administration of the state. 35 So
here state has to do work in consultation with the centre executive which show the supremacy
of the centre.
Making a departure from corresponding provision in the Government of India act, entry 45 in
List III of the 7 schedule empowers parliament to legislate on the subject of inquires for the
purpose of any of the matter specified in List II also besides List III, and List I as mentioned
in entry 94 of that List. This inquiry would indicate the supremacy of union over state
legislature. The constitution power of amendment of the constitution lies with the parliament
under articles 368 providing for concurrence by the half the number of the state in certain
matters.36
Only the union is indestructible and the states are not. Article 3 of the Constitution vests the
Parliament with powers to constitute new states by separating territories from the existing
ones, alter their boundaries, and change their names. The only requirement for this is that the
`Bill for the purpose will have to be placed in the Parliament on their commendation of the
President and after it has been referred to the relevant state legislature for ascertaining their
34 Aricle 256
35 Karnataka state v. union of india
36 Karnataka state v. union of india, AIR 1978 SC 68(152)
19

views (their approval is not necessary). The federation is not founded on the principle of
equality between the unions and states either. The central government in India has the
powers, and it actually does invade the legislative and executive domains of the states
(Chanda, 1965; Rao and Sen, 1996;Rao and Singh, 2000).
The Seventh Schedule elaborates the division of powers and responsibilities between the
Union and the States and as stated earlier, items of national and international importance are
included in the Union list for the Union government and items of local importance are
included in the State list. Subjects on mutual interest are included in the Concurrent list. The
Union list contains 97 subjects, State list contains 66 subjects and the Concurrent list contains
47 subjects. The Union Government's jurisdiction is much wider in the Constitution than in
other federal Constitutions, and this is a deliberate attempt.

Whether Indian constitution is quasi-federal

Quasi-federal constitute of both federal and unitary federalism. A type of federalism which
consist the features of both federal and unitary federalism is called as quasi-federalism. Prof.
K.C.Wheare describes Indian federalism as quasi-federalism. According to him quasifederalism is the system of governance which is federal in form but unitary in spirit. He
argued that Indian system consist both feature i.e. of federal and unitary federalism.
With the help of articles 246-254 we can see that power has been given to both state as well
as centre legislature. Articles 249, 250, 251, 252, 253 and 254 of the constitution show that
Indian constitution has unitary federalism. Articles 246 and 248 show that constitution has

20

federal structure. So because of these factors it can be argued that our constitution is quasifederal because it has characteristic of both unitary and federal constitution.
Both the Union and State Governments can administer the Concurrent list, and can legislate
on it. However, as stated in Article 254, in case of any inconsistency between laws made by
the Parliament and laws made by the Legislature of States, the former will prevail over the
later, irrespective of the time period. An exception to this is provided is clause (2) of the same
Article, which is, if the State Legislation "has been reserved for the consideration of the
President and has received his assent" then it will prevail in that State. This law again can be
amended by the Parliament also, if required. Article 254 establishes the primacy of the Union
over the Concurrent list and practically on all items of this list there was existing federal law
or the Union Government has made laws.
In state of Karnataka v Union of India37, Justice Untwalia Strictly speaking, our constitution
is not of a federal character where separate, independent and sovereign state could be said to
have joined to form a nation as in the USA or as may be the position in some other countries
of the world. It is because of this reason that sometimes it has been characterized as quasifederal in nature.
In India, parliament can by law form a new state, alter the size of an existing state, alter the
name of existing state, etc. and even curtail the power, both executive and legislative, by
amending the constitution. That is why the constitutional of India is differently described,
more appropriately as quasi- federal because it is mixture of the federal and unitary elements,
leaning more toward the latter.38
The respective State Governments have the exclusive power to legislate on the items in the
State list. Again, the scheme of distribution of powers as outlined in Article 246 of the
Constitution make it abundantly clear that the State legislatures can legislate in regard to
matters in the State list "subject to" the powers of Parliament in regard to the Union and the
Concurrent list of powers; as against this, the powers of Parliament are "notwithstanding"
whatever powers have been vested in the State Legislatures. However, two exceptional
provisions in the Constitution limits the exclusivity of State Governments, viz; (1 ) Article
37 AIR 1978 SC 68
38 L.M.Singhvi, Constitution of India, 3rd edition

21

249 states, if the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) declares by a resolution supported by twothirds of the members, present and voting, that it is necessary or expedient in the national
interest that Parliament should make laws with respect to any matter enumerated in the State
list, then Parliament is competent to make laws on that matters for the whole or any part of
India; (2) Article 250 empowers the Parliament to make laws on any item included in the
State list for the whole or any part of India while a proclamation of emergency is in
operation. These two provisions clearly indicate that only in case of national urgency can the
Parliament legislate on a State subject. In contrast to these two provisions, as per Article 252,
the Parliament can legislate on State subjects, if "two or more States by consent and adoption
of such legislation by any other State" empower the Parliament to act accordingly. "This
article makes it possible for Parliament to make such laws relating to State subjects as regards
such States whose legislatures empower Parliament in this behalf by resolutions. Passing of
the resolutions is a condition precedent for vesting the power in Parliament"
The Union list is the most exhaustive list and is also significant in the context of the national
and international sphere. The Constitution has made provisions whereby the subjects of the
State list can also be legislated by the Union government, at times of emergency and other
situations. The Union Government is vested with not only the Union list, but also enjoys
primacy in Concurrent list and the residuary powers as per Articles 254 and 248 respectively.
There are also a number of other unitary provisions in the Constitution and for which reason
Wheare comments that 'India is quasi-federal' and that, 'India is a unitary state with
subsidiary federal features rather than a federal state with subsidiary features of a unitary
state".39

CONCLUSION
After discussing different arguments over different characteristic of the Indian constitution i
come to a conclusion that Indian constitution is quasi-federal. As there is no clarity about the
true nature of federalism, we can take into consideration different provision and then decide
the nature of federalism. In the earlier days intention of constitution makers was to make in
federal with strong centre but with the time we can see that it is changing from federal to
quasi-federal. Power is also given to state but in coordination with centre.
39 Journal of Business Management & Social Sciences Research (JBM&SSR) ISSN No: 2319-5614 Volume 3,
No.9, September 2014

22

The framers of the Constitution after much deliberation and analysis framed the Constitution.
They also borrowed provisions from other Constitutions of the world and adopted a federal
form of governance, though not mentioning the word 'federal'. Union and States are expected
to work within the limits of the Constitution and by mutual willingness and co-operation.
States should not become over-ambitious and the Union should also not be too coercive.
Federalism can operate only if the Union tolerates the States and vice-versa. Verinder Grover
is of the view40 that The Constitution is a federal one in-as-much as it establishes what may
be called a dual polity which consists of the Union at the Centre and the States at the
periphery. The Centre and the States are endowed with sovereign powers to be exercised in
their respective fields assigned to them by the Constitution. Nevertheless, the Constitution
avoids the tight mould of federalism and it can be both unitary and federal according to the
requirements of time and circumstances.
Dr. B.R.Ambedkar in constitutional assembly debate explained the position in the following
terms: He tried to explain that this type of distribution of power among centre and state does
not bring the federal structure. A serious complaint is made on the ground that there is too
much of centralization and that the states have been reduced to municipalities. As to the
relation 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 the
executive authority are partitioned between the centre and the states not by any law to be
made by the centre but by constitution itself. This is what the constitution does. The states,
under our constitution, are in no way dependent upon the centre for their legislative or
executive authority. The centre and states is co-equal in this matter. It is difficult to see how
such a constitution can be called centralism. It may be that the constitution assign to the
centre loo large a field for the operation of its legislative and executive authority than it is
found in any other Federal constitution. It may be that the residuary powers are given to the
centre and no to the states. But these features do not form the essence of federalism. The chief
mark of federalism lies in the partition of the legislative and executive authority between
centre and the units by the constitution. This is principle embodied in our constitution. It is
quasi-federal constitution as federal in the sense that powers are divided between centre and
executive and also unitary because sometime supremacy is given to parliament but in certain
special circumstances and not permanently.
40 Grover, Verinder. (1997), Political System & Constitution of India, Vol.4, Deep & Deep
Publications, New Delhi.
23

The framers of the Constitution have incorporated certain non-federal features in it such as
single citizenship, single judiciary, a strong centre, appointment of the Governor by the
President, unequal of representation in the Rajya Sabha and so on. All these indicate a tilt
towards strong centre. The states have to work in close cooperation with the centre. The
constitution is federal in form but unitary in spirit. The study of Centre-State relationship in
legislative, administrative and financial spheres also clearly shows that the Centre is strong
eras compared to the states. The Centre has been assigned a dominant role which became
necessary keeping in view the dangers to the unity and integrity of the nation. Therefore,
there are provisions for a co- operative federalism.
Federalism in the Indian constitution is biased toward centre. Several provisions of Indian
constitution show that the founding father intended to create a strong centre and the bias
towards the centre is reflected in the distribution of legislative heads between centre and the
states. More important heads of legislation are placed in List-I. In the concurrent list,
parliamentary enactments are given primacy and residuary power to legislate is along with
the centre. By the 42nd amendment, a few entries in List-II were either omitted or transferred
to other Lists. Articles 249 to 252 further demonstrate the primacy of parliament allowing it
liberty to encroach on the field meant exclusively for state legislation, although this is subject
to certain condition satisfied.41 Union has given power on the subject which are on state list
under some special circumstances this does not make Indian constitution as unitary.
It is argued that some of these provisions, where parliament has given power in case of
national interest (art. 249) or national emergency (art. 250) or for that matter any other
condition, are also provided in the constitution of other jurisdiction but still they are federal
constitution then why cannot Indian constitution be regarded as federal constitution.
The essence of distinction between unitary and federal system lies in the fact that unitary
state has subordinate provinces with definite powers. In the unitary state there can be no field
of legislation which the central parliament cannot enter. In the federal state, on the other
hand, powers are divided between the central or local government so that each of them is
independent of the other. Each government has a separate and co-ordinaet power. If the

41 Commentary on the constitution, arvind p datar, 2 nd edition, volume 2

24

central government can invade the provincial field at will, or the provinces can control the
central government, there is no federalism.42
The principle of the division of powers requires that while the items of national importance
should be allotted to the Central Government for the sake of national security and
administrative efficiency and economy, the subjects of local importance should be given to
the governments of the units. It is on this principle that the founding fathers of our
Constitution have devised the distribution of responsibilities. The residuary powers are vested
in the Union, in a similar manner found in Canada, and it is stated in Article 248.
In June 1983, the Union Government appointed a Commission under the Chairmanship of
Justice R.S. Sarkaria to re-examine Centre-State relations in view of the growing demand for
more autonomy to the States. The Commission's terms of reference included examination and
review of the working of the existing arrangement between Union and the States with regard
to powers, functions and responsibilities in all spheres. Among other things, the Commission
was of the view that the Centre should remain strong and hence rejected any demand for
curtailing the powers of the Centre, and transfer of more subjects from the Centre to the
States as raised in the Anandpur Sahib Resolution, and referred to the Commission by the
Government. The Commission opined that the transfer of some subjects like preventive
detention, education, labour and electricity to the States would disturb the basic scheme of
Constitution.43 So this maintained the federal feature of the Indian constitution which is basic
feature of the Indian constitution and cannot be changed but along with this it also maintained
the strong centre.
L.M.Singhvi in his book: true, the federal principle is dominant in our constitution and that
principle is one of its basic features, but, it is also equally true that federalism under the
Indian constitution leans in favour of a strong centre, a feature that mitigates the concept of
strong federalism. Some of the provisions that can be referred to in this context include article
250,252,253,249, 312, and 3 and there is only one citizenship namely the citizenship of
India.44
42 Scott: essay on the constitution, p. 177
43 The Indian Journal of Political Science Vol. L XVIII, No. 4, Oct.- Dee., 2007, p.no. 12
44 Kuldip nayar v uoi, AIR 2006 SC 3127
25

So it can be said that Indian constitution is not unitary but it is federal constitution with
strong centre and with the requirement of the time it can also be changed into unitary
characteristic so it be called as quasi-federal.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

P.M.Bakshi, Commentary on the Constitution of India

M.P.Jain, Indian constitution
L.M.Singhvi, Constitution of India, 3rd edition
Dr. Durga Das Basu, comparative Federalism, 2nd edition, 2008

Arvind P Datar, Commentary on the constitution, , 2nd edition, volume

Bare act

26