Federal System

Political scientists have classified governments into unitary and federal on the basis of the nature of
relations between the national government and the regional governments.

By definition, a unitary government is one in which all the powers are vested in the national
government and the regional governments, if at all exist, derive their authority from the national
government.

A federal government, on the other hand, is one in which powers are divided between the national
government and the regional governments by the Constitution itself and both operate in their
respective jurisdictions independently.

 Four important features of a federal system:

o Multiple levels of government: Federalism, by its very definition, requires multiple
levels of government functioning within their defined territory.
o Division of Power: The power is divided by the division of subjects between the
entities so that the chances of conflict are reduced to a minimum.
o Written Constitution: It ensures there is clarity in the respective division of power.
Again, a rigid constitution ensures that this division of power is not easily disturbed.
o Independent Judiciary: It acts as a dispute resolution mechanism between the
different levels of government.

Britain, France, Japan, China, Italy, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Spain and so on have the unitary
model of government.

US, Switzerland, Australia, Canada, Russia, Brazil, Argentina and so on have the federal model of
government.

In a federal model, the national government is known as the Federal government or the Central
government or the Union government and the regional government is known as the state
government or the provincial government.

Federal Government Unitary Government

1. Dual Government (that is, national 1. Single government, that is, the national
government and regional government) government which may create regional
governments
2. Written Constitution 2. Constitution may be written (France) or
unwritten (Britain)
3. Division of powers between the national 3. No division of powers. All powers are
and regional government vested in the national government
4. Supremacy of the Constitution 4. Constitution may be supreme (Japan) or
may not be supreme (Britain)
5. Rigid Constitution 5. Constitution may be rigid (France) or
flexible (Britain)
6. Independent judiciary 6. Judiciary may be independent or may not
be independent
7. Bicameral legislature 7. Legislature may be bicameral (Britain) or
unicameral (China)
The term 'federation' is derived from a Latin word foedus which means 'treaty' or 'agreement'.
Thus, a federation is a new state (political system) which is formed through a treaty or an agreement
between the various units. The units of a federation are known by various names like states (as in
US) or cantons (as in Switzerland) or provinces (as in Canada) or republics (as in Russia).

Federation can be formed by way of integration or by way of disintegration.

 In the first case, a number of militarily weak or economically backward states (independent)
come together to form a big and a strong union, as for example, the US.
 In the second case, a big unitary state is converted into a federation by granting autonomy
to the provinces to promote regional interest (for example, Canada).

The US is the first and the oldest federation in the world. It was formed in 1787 following the
American Revolution (1775-83). It comprises 50 states (originally 13 states) and is taken as the
model of federation. The Canadian Federation, comprising 10 provinces (originally 4 provinces) is
also quite old-formed in 1867.

The Indian federal system is based on the 'Canadian model' and not on the 'American model'. The
'Canadian model' differs fundamentally from the American model' in so far as it establishes a very
strong centre. The Indian federation resembles the Canadian federation

(i) in its formation (i.e., by way of disintegration);

(ii) in its preference to the term 'Union' (the Canadian federation is also called a 'Union');
(iii) in its centralising tendency (i.e., vesting more powers in the centre vis-a-vis the states).

However, the term ‘federation’ has no where been used in the Constitution. Instead, Article 1 of the
Constitution describes India as ‘Union of States’. According to Dr. B. R. Ambedkar the phrase ‘Union’
has been used to indicate two things:

(i) the Indian federation is not the result of an agreement among the states like the
American federation; and
(ii) the states have no right to secede from the federation. The federation is union because
it is indestructible.

Types of Federalism

 Cooperative Federalism: It refers to the horizontal relationship between the entities in a

federal structure. For e.g. India is a federal country with power divided between the Centre
and the States. Cooperative federalism refers to the cooperation between the two entities in
pursuit of unified socio-economic development of the country. For e.g. despite having their
divisions over various issues, the Centre and States are expected to come together to face a
crisis, which affects the country in its entirety.
 Competitive Federalism: It refers to promoting healthy competition between the states to
keep them motivated in pursuit of economic development. For e.g. NITI Aayog has
developed multiple indices to showcase the progress achieved by respective states in
different sectors. The laggard states are expected to put in extra efforts to catch-up with the
front-runners, while the front-runners are expected to work hard to retain their ranking in
the indices.
 Fiscal Federalism: It deals with the division of financial powers as well as the functions
between multiple levels of the federal government. It has within its ambit the imposition of
 taxes as well as the division of different taxes between the Centre and the constituent units.
Similarly, in the case of joint collection of taxes, an objective criterion is determined for the
fair division of funds between the entities. Usually, there is a constitutional authority (like
Finance Commission in India) for the purpose to ensure fairness in the division.

Reasons for a centralised federal structure in India

 Partition of India and the concomitant concerns: Anticipating the Muslim League’s

participation in the Constituent Assembly debates following the Cabinet Mission plan in
1946, the Objectives Resolution introduced by Jawaharlal Nehru in the Assembly were
inclined towards a decentralised federal structure. In it, the States would wield residuary
powers. 
 Safeguarding the integrity of the nation: After the Partition a revised stand was
unanimously taken by the Union Powers Committee of the Constituent Assembly, in favour
of a strong Union with residuary powers and weaker States, to safeguard the integrity of the
nation.
 Helping India come out of social problems, a strong centre was important: Nehru and
Ambedkar believed that a centralised federal structure would unsettle prevalent trends of
social dominance, help fight poverty better and therefore yield liberating outcomes. 
 Objective of building a welfare state: In a decentralised federal setup, redistributive policies
could be structurally thwarted by organised (small and dominant) groups. Instead, a
centralised federal set-up can prevent such issues and further a universal rights-based
system.
 Alleviation of inter-regional economic inequality: The cotton mill industry in Bombay, and
the jute mill industry in the Bengal region were subject to a ‘race to the bottom’ or rampant
cost cutting practices. 
o Provincial interventions seemed to exacerbate inequalities. 
o India’s membership in the International Labour Organization, the Nehru Report
(1928), and the Bombay Plan (1944) pushed for a centralised system to foster socio-
economic rights and safeguards for the working and entrepreneurial classes.
 Large Size of the country and its socio-cultural diversity.
 Efficient governance of the country.
 Reconcile national unity with regional autonomy.
FEDERAL FEATURES OF THE CONSTITUTION

In India, political power is divided between the Central government, state governments and the
institutions of local governance. 

The federal features of the Constitution of India are explained below:

1. Dual Polity

The Constitution establishes a dual polity consisting of the Union at the Centre and the states at the
periphery. Each is endowed with sovereign powers to be exercised in the field assigned to them
respectively by the Constitution. The Union government deals with the matters of national
importance like defence, foreign affairs, currency, communication and so on. The state
governments, on the other hand, look after the matters of regional and local importance like public
order, agriculture, health, local government and so on.

2. Written Constitution

The Constitution is not only a written document but also the lengthiest Constitution of the world.
Originally, it contained a Preamble, 395 Articles (divided into 22 Parts) and 8 Schedules. At present
(2016), it consists of a Preamble, about 465 Articles (divided into 25 Parts) and 12 Schedules. It
specifies the structure, organisation, powers and functions of both the Central and state
governments and prescribes the limits within which they must operate. Thus, it avoids the
misunderstandings and disagreements between the two.

3. Division of Powers

The Constitution divided the powers between Centre and the states in terms of the Union List, State
List and Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule. The Union List consists of 100 subjects (originally
97), the State List 61 subjects (originally 66) and Concurrent List 52 subjects (originally 47). Both
Centre and the states can make laws on the of the subjects of the concurrent list, but in case of
conflict, the central law prevails.

The residuary subjects (which are not mentioned in any of the three lists) are given to the Centre.

4. Supremacy of the Constitution

The Constitution is the supreme (or the highest) law of the land. The laws enacted by the Centre and
the states must confirm to its provisions. Otherwise, they can be declared invalid by the Supreme
Court or the high courts through their power of judicial review. Thus, the organs of the government
(legislative, executive and judicial) at both the levels must operate within the jurisdiction prescribed
by the Constitution.

5. Rigid Constitution

The division of powers established by the Constitution as well as the supremacy of the Constitution
can be maintained only if the method of its amendment is rigid. Hence, the Constitution is rigid to
the extent that those provisions which are concerned with the federal structure (i.e ., Centre-state
relations and judicial organisation) can be amended only by the joint action of the Central and state
governments. Such provisions require for their amendment a special majority of the Parliament and
also an approval of half of the state legislatures.

6. Independent Judiciary

The Constitution establishes an independent judiciary headed by the Supreme Court for two
purposes: one, to protect the supremacy of the Constitution by exercising the power of judicial
review; and two, to settle the disputes between the Centre and the states or between the states.
The Constitution contains various measures like security of tenure to judges, fixed service conditions
and so on to make the judiciary independent of the government.

7. Bicameralism

The Constitution provides for a bicameral legislature consisting of an Upper House (Rajya Sabha) and
a Lower House (Lok Sabha). The Rajya Sabha represents the states of Indian Federation, while the
Lok Sabha represents the people of India as a whole. The Rajya Sabha (even though a less powerful
chamber) is required to maintain the federal equilibrium by protecting the interests of the states
against the undue interference of the Centre.

UNITARY FEATURES OF THE CONSTITUTION

Besides the above federal features, the Indian Constitution also possesses the following unitary or
non-federal features:

1. Strong Centre

The division of powers is in favour of the Centre and highly inequitable from the federal angle.
Firstly, the Union List contains more subjects than the State List. Secondly, the more important
subjects have been included in the Union List. Thirdly, the Centre has overriding authority over the
Concurrent List. Finally, the residuary powers have also been left with the Centre, while in the US,
they are vested in the states. Thus, the Constitution has made the Centre very strong.

2. States Not Indestructible

Unlike in other federations, the states in India have no right to territorial integrity. The Parliament
can by unilateral action change the area, boundaries or name of any state. Moreover, it requires
only a simple majority and not a special majority. Hence, the Indian Federation is "an indestructible
Union of destructible states". The American Federation, on the other hand, is described as "an
indestructible Union of indestructible states".

3. Single Constitution

Usually, in a federation, the states have the right to frame their own Constitution separate from that
of the Centre. In India, on the contrary, no such power is given to the states. The Constitution of
India embodies not only the Constitution of the Centre but also those of the states. Both the Centre
and the states must operate within this single-frame.

The only exception in this regard was the case of Jammu and Kashmir which has its own (state)
Constitution.
4. Flexibility of the Constitution

The process of constitutional amendment is less rigid than what is found in other
federations. The bulk of the Constitution can be amended by the unilateral action of the Parliament,
either by simple majority or by special majority. Further, the power to initiate an amendment to the
constitution lies only with the Centre. In US, the states can also propose an amendment to the
Constitution.

5. No Equality of State Representation

The states are given representation in the Rajya Sabha on the basis of population. Hence, the
membership varies from 1 to 31. In US, on the other hand, the principle of equality of representation
of states in the Upper House is fully recognised. Thus, the American Senate has 100 members, two
from each state. This principle is regarded as a safeguard for smaller states.

6. Emergency Provisions

The Constitution stipulates three types of emergencies-national, state and financial. During an
emergency, the Central government becomes all powerful and the states go into the total control of
the Centre. It converts the federal structure into a unitary one without a formal amendment of the
Constitution. This kind of transformation is not found in any other federation.

7. Single Citizenship

In spite of a dual polity, the Constitution of India, like that of Canada, adopted the system of single
citizenship. There is only Indian Citizenship and no separate state citizenship. All citizens irrespective
of the state in which they are born or reside enjoy the same rights all over the country. The other
federal states like US, Switzerland and Australia have dual citizenship, that is, national citizenship as
well as state citizenship.

8. Integrated Judiciary

The Indian Constitution has established an integrated judicial system with the Supreme Court at the
top and the state high courts below it. This single system of courts enforces both the Central laws as
well as the state laws. In US, on the other hand, there is a double system of courts whereby the
federal laws are enforced by the federal judiciary and the state laws by the state judiciary.

9. All-India Services

In US, the Federal government and the state governments have their separate public services. In
India also, the Centre and the states have their separate public services. But, in addition, there are
all-India services (IAS, IPS, and IFS) which are common to both the Centre and the states. The
members of these services are recruited and trained by the Centre which also possess ultimate
control over them. Thus, these services violate the principle of federalism under the Constitution.

10. Integrated Audit Machinery

The Comptroller and Auditor-General of India audits the accounts of not only the Central
government but also those of the states. But, his appointment and removal is done by the president
without consulting the states. Hence, this office restricts the financial autonomy of the states. The
American Comptroller General, on the contrary, has no role with respect to the accounts of the
states.

11. Parliament's Authority Over State

Even in the limited sphere of authority allotted to them, the states do not have exclusive control.
The Parliament is empowered to legislate on any subject of the State List if Rajya Sabha passes a
resolution to that effect in the national interest. This means that the legislative competence of the
Parliament can be extended without amending the Constitution. Notably, this can be done when
there is no emergency of any kind.

12. Appointment of Governor

The governor, who is the head of the state, is appointed by the President. He holds office during the
pleasure of the President. He also acts as an agent of the Centre. Through him, the Centre exercises
control over the states. The American Constitution, on the contrary, provided for an elected head in
the states. In this respect, India adopted the Canadian system.

13. Integrated Election Machinery

The Election Commission conducts elections not only to the Central legislature but also to the state
legislatures. But, this body is constituted by the President and the states have no say in this matter.
The position is same with regard to the removal of its members as well. On the other hand, US has
separate machineries for the conduct of elections at the federal and state levels.

14. Veto Over State Bills

The governor is empowered to reserve certain types of bills passed by the state legislature for the
consideration of the President. The President can withhold his assent to such bills not only in the
first instance but also in the second instance. Thus, the President enjoys absolute veto (and not
suspensive veto) over state bills. But in US and Australia, the states are autonomous within their
fields and there is no provision for any such reservation.

CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM

From the above, it is clear that the Constitution of India has deviated from the traditional federal
systems like US, Switzerland and Australia and incorporated a large number of unitary or non-federal
features, tilting the balance of power in favour of the Centre. This has prompted the Constitutional
experts to challenge the federal character of the Indian Constitution.

Thus, KC Wheare described the Constitution of India as "quasi-federal". He remarked that "Indian
Union is a unitary state with subsidiary federal features rather than a federal state with subsidiary
unitary features."

According to K Santhanam, the two factors have been responsible for increasing the unitary bias
(tendency of centralisation) of the Constitution. These are:

(i) the dominance of the Centre in the financial sphere and the dependence
of the states upon the Central grants; and
(ii) the emergence of a powerful planning commission which controls the
developmental process in the states. He observed: "India has practically
functioned as a unitary state though the Union and the states have tried
to function formally and legally as a federation."

However, there are other political scientists who do not agree with the above descriptions.

 Thus, Paul Appleby characterises the Indian system as "extremely federal".

  Morris Jones" termed it as a "bargaining federalism".
 Ivor Jennings has described it as a "federation with a strong centralising tendency". He
observed that "the Indian Constitution is mainly federal with unique safeguards for
enforcing national unity and growth".
 Alexandrowicz stated that "India is a case sui generis (i.e., unique in character).
 Granville Austin called the Indian federalism as a "cooperative federalism". He said that
though the Constitution of India has created a strong Central government, it has not made
the state governments weak and has not reduced them to the level of administrative
agencies for the execution of policies of the Central government. He described the Indian
federation as "a new kind of federation to meet India's peculiar needs".

Dr. B R Ambedkar on “Federalism in Indian Constitution”

On the nature of Indian Constitution, Dr B R Ambedkar made the following observation in the
Constituent Assembly:

"The Constitution is a Federal Constitution in as much as it establishes a dual polity. The Union is
not a league of states, united in a loose relationship, nor are the states the agencies of the Union,
deriving powers from it. Both the Union and the states are created by the Constitution, both
derive their respective authority from the Constitution."

He further observed: "Yet the Constitution avoids the tight mould of federalism and could be both
unitary as well as federal according to the requirements of time and circumstances".

While replying to the criticism of over-centralisation in the Constitution, he stated: "A serious
complaint is made on the ground that there is too much centralisation and the states have been
reduced to municipalities. It is clear that this view is not only an exaggeration but is also founded
on a misunderstanding of what exactly the Constitution contrives to do. As to the relations
between the Centre and the states, it is necessary to bear in mind the fundamental principle on
which it rests. The basic principle of federalism is that the legislative and executive authority is
partitioned between the Centre and the states not by any law to be made by the Centre but by the
Constitution itself. This is what the Constitution does. The states are in no way dependent upon
the Centre for their legislative or executive authority. The states and the Centre are co-equal in
this matter. It is difficult to see how such a Constitution can be called centralism. It is, therefore,
wrong to say that the states have been placed under the Centre. The Centre cannot by its own will
alter the boundary of this partition. Nor can the judiciary".

The political system reflects its federal spirit:

(i)Territorial disputes between states, for example, between Maharashtra and Karnataka over
Belgaum;

(ii)Disputes between states over sharing of river water, for example, between Karnataka and Tamil
Nadu over Cauvery Water;

(iii) The emergence of regional parties and their coming to power in states like Andhra Pradesh,
Tamil Nadu, etc.;

(iv) The creation of new states to fulfil the regional aspirations, for example, Mizoram or recently
Jharkhand;
(v) Demand of the states for more financial grants from the Centre to meet their developmental
needs;

(vi) Assertion of autonomy by the states and their resistance to the interference from the Centre;

(vii) Supreme Court's imposition of several procedural limitations on the use of Article 356
(President's Rule in the States) by the Centre

Supreme Court on Federalism

In Bommai case (1994), the Supreme Court laid down that the Constitution is federal and
characterised federalism as its 'basic feature'.

It observed: "The fact that under the scheme of our Constitution, greater power is conferred upon
the Centre vis-a-vis the states does not mean that the states are mere appendages of the Centre.
The states have an independent constitutional existence. They are not satellites or agents of the
Centre. Within the sphere allotted to them, the states are supreme. The fact that during
emergency and in certain other eventualities their powers are overridden or invaded by the
Centre is not destructive of the essential federal feature of the Constitution. They are exceptions
and the exceptions are not a rule. Let it be said that the federalism in the Indian Constitution is not
a matter of administrative convenience, but one of principle-the outcome of our own process and
recognition of the ground realities".

Conclusion
 Federalism in India represents a compromise between the two conflicting considerations:
(i) normal division of powers under which states enjoy autonomy within
their own spheres; and
(ii) need for national integrity and a strong Union government under
exceptional circumstances

 Interdependence of State and Central Government: 

o India consciously adopted a version of federalism that made the Union government
and State governments interdependent on each other (latter more vis-a-vis the
former).
o Thereby violating the primal characteristic of a federal constitution i.e., autonomous
spheres of authority for Union and State governments but ushering a need for co-
operative federalism.
 ‘Holding together’ Federalism: 
o India’s centralised federal structure was not marked by the process of ‘coming
together’ but was an outcome of ‘holding together’ and ‘putting together’.