Federalism is a system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units, such as states or provinces. In India, federalism is enshrined in the country’s constitution, which establishes a federal system of government with a division of powers between the central government and the states. So, in federalism, the division of powers is between two levels of government of equal status.
Cooperative Federalism: Cooperative federalism is a state of relationship between center and state where they both come together and resolve the common problems through cooperation. Here, constituent units are interdependent and not independent. Further, though powers are divided amongst constituting units, they cooperate in the exercise of these powers.
Competitive Federalism: Competitive federalism refers to states competing with each other and with Centre to provide better standards of quality of life, public services delivery and governance to the citizen as well as for attracting investments in their respective states.
Competitive sub-Federalism: Competitive sub-Federalism refers to cities within states competing with each other to provide better standards of quality of life, public services delivery and governance to the citizen as well as for attracting investments in their respective cities
India’s Federal Structure
- The Constitution of India provides for three lists of powers – Union List, State List, and Concurrent List.
- The Union List includes subjects that are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the central government, such as defence, foreign affairs, and currency.
- The State List includes subjects that are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the states, such as agriculture, health, and public order.
- The Concurrent List includes subjects that are shared by both the central government and the states, such as education, forests, and electricity.
- India’s federal system is also characterized by a strong center, with the central government having significant powers and resources to influence the policies and actions of the states but states are also not powerless. For example, the central government has the power to impose President’s rule in a state if it deems that the state’s constitutional machinery has failed.
- Additionally, the central government has the power to override state laws on Concurrent List subjects if they are deemed to be inconsistent with national interests.
- Despite the strong centre, India’s federal system has provided significant autonomy and power to the states. Each state has its own government and legislative assembly, with the power to enact laws and policies on matters under its jurisdiction. Additionally, the states have significant financial autonomy, with the power to levy taxes and receive a share of the central government’s tax revenue.
Views of eminent jurists on Indian Federalism
- 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.
- 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”.
- Granville Austin called Indian federalism “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.
- 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, and both derive their respective authority from the Constitution.”
- Alexandrowicz stated that “India is a case sui generis (i.e., unique in character).
- Morris Jones termed it as “bargaining federalism”.
- Paul Appleby characterises the Indian system as “extremely federal”.
Present challenges to federalism in India:
- The Inter-State Council has met only once in the last seven years, while the National Development Council has not met at all.
- The constitutional office of the Governor has come under scrutiny several times for encroaching on the powers of state executive and legislature.
- Many important and politically sensitive decisions are taken without reference to, and consultation with, the concerned states. For instance, Article 370 was removed without consulting the state legislature.
The GST has already taken away much of the autonomy available to states and has made the country’s indirect tax regime unitary in nature. - The tenure of the 15th Finance Commission was mired in controversy, and many states expressed apprehensions about devolution.
- The State Action Plans on Climate Change (SAPCCs) have suffered from a lack of specificity in design and inadequate financial support from the Centre, and rank low among governance priorities in state capitals.
- Governor: The appointment of the Governor must be done by a panel which among others also has the State Chief Minister. There should be provisions for the impeachment of the Governor by the state legislature along the same lines as that of the President by Parliament.
- Inter-State Council (ISC): The council must meet at least thrice a year on an agenda evolved after proper consultation with states. The Centre should consult states before introducing bills on items in the concurrent list through the inter-state council.
- The States should be involved in the Finance Commissions’ work to come up with the final terms of the contract.
- The Finance Commission and the Planning Commission (now NITI Aayog) should work much closer together. This cooperation will be greatly enhanced by synchronising the Finance Commission’s and the five-year plan’s time frames.
- The National Water Resources Council needs to play a greater role in integrating policy and programmes on a continuous basis.
