Q. Indian federal structure is constitutionally oriented towards the Central Government. Explain. [66th BPSC/2021]

Q. Indian federal structure is constitutionally oriented towards the Central Government. Explain. [66th BPSC/2021]
Ans:
The founding fathers of Indian Constitution adopted a Federal structures. In a federal set up there is a two tier of Government with well assigned powers and functions. In this system the central government and the governments of the units act within a well defined sphere, co-ordinate and at the same time act independently. It is a constitutional device for bringing unity in diversity and for the achievement of common national goals.
The Indian constitution contains all the usual features of a federation, viz., two government, division of powers, written Constitution, supermacy of Constitution, rigidity of Constitution, independent judiciary and bicameralism.
Further, the federal spirit is also reflected in some trends in the working of the Indian political system e.g. river water disputes between states e.g. between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu over Cauvery Water; territorial disputes between states e.g. between Assam and Mizoram; creation of new states to fulfil the regional aspirations, differences between states and centre in GST council etc. ©crackingcivilservices.com

However, Indian federal structure is constitutionally oriented towards the Central Government. It is reflected in:

• Strong centre:
  • The division of powers is in favour of the Centre and highly inequitable from the federal angle. e.g. The Union List contains more subjects and more important subjects than the State List. The Centre also has overriding authority over the Concurrent List. The residuary powers have also been left with the Centre.
• Union of states:
  • Unlike USA, Article I of the Constitution describes India as a ‘Union of States’ rather than a ‘Federation of States‘. it implies:
    • It is not the result of an agreement among the States, and
    • The States have no freedom to secede or separate from the Union.
• Destructible nature of states:
  • 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”.
• Single constitution:
  • Unlike in truly federal countries, 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.
• 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.
• No equality of state representation in Rajya Sabha:
  • Even equality of units is not guaranteed as there is no equal representation in upper house. In a true federation such as that of United State of America every State irrespective of their size in terms of area or population it sends two representatives in the upper House i.e. Senate.
• Emergency provision:
  • 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.
• Single citizenship: In India, There is only Indian Citizenship and no separate state citizenship. The other federal states like US, Switzerland and Australia have dual citizenship.
• Appointment of governor: The governor, who is the head of the state, is appointed by the President. He also acts as an agent of the Centre. Through him, the Centre exercises control over the states.
• 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 enjoys absolute veto over state bills.
• Integrated judiciary: In India, 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.
• All India services 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.
• In addition to all this, all important appointments such as the Chief Election Commissioner, the Comptroller and Auditor General are made by the Union Government.
• In case of disturbances in any State or part thereof, the Union Government is empowered to depute Central Force in the State or to the disturbed part of the State.
• Further Planning commission, Niti Ayog, NIA, central sponsored schemes, central grants etc has also led to increased control of centre over the states.

From the above discussion, it is clear, that there is a tilt in favor of the Centre at the cost of the States. This has prompted the Constitutional experts to challenge the federal character of the Indian Constitution.

• 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 the Indian federalism as a “cooperative federalism”. He viewed that though centre is strong, the states are not weak and has not been reduced to the level of administrative agencies for the execution of policies of the Central government.

However, there are other political scientists who do not agree with this view,

• Paul Appleby characterises the Indian system as “extremely federal”.
• Morris Jones termed it as a “bargaining federalism”.

As Dr B R Ambedkar stated in constitutional assembly: “ 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.” He further said, “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.”
In Bommai case, the Supreme Court laid down that the Constitution is federal and characterised federalism as its ‘basic feature’. It observed: “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.”

To conclude, the Indian federal system has unitary bias and it represents a compromise between the following two conflicting considerations: (a) normal division of powers under which states enjoy autonomy within their own spheres; and (b) need for national integrity and a strong Union government under exceptional circumstances. Going forward, The recommendation of Sarkaria and Punchhi commission can be revisited to further the federal spirit in Indian political system. ©crackingcivilservices.com