Home
Indian polity
POLITY-UPSC

Critical Evaluation of the Federal System of India - Polity Notes

A federal system is a system of government where power is divided between two levels of government.
Amith

Critical Evaluation of the Federal System of India 

  • A federal system is a system of government where power is divided between two levels of government.

  • Usually, these two levels are:

    • Central (National) Government

    • State (Regional) Governments

Simple Meaning

  • In a federal system, both the Centre and the States have their own powers.

  • Neither level can take away the powers of the other on its own.

1. Nature of Indian Federalism

  • The Indian Constitution does not follow pure federalism like the USA, Switzerland, or Australia.

  • It includes many unitary (centralising) features, giving more power to the Centre.

  • Because of this, India’s federal nature has been debated by constitutional experts.

2. Views Supporting Unitary Bias

K.C. Wheare

  • Called India a “quasi-federal” system.

  • Said India is “a unitary state with subsidiary federal features”, not a true federation.

K. Santhanam

  • Identified two main reasons for centralisation:

    • Financial dominance of the Centre and states’ dependence on central grants.

    • Strong role of the Planning Commission (now replaced by NITI Aayog).

  • Observed that India has functioned almost like a unitary state in practice.

3. Views Supporting Federal Character

Paul Appleby

  • Described India as “extremely federal”.

Morris Jones

  • Called it “bargaining federalism”, where Centre and states negotiate power.

Ivor Jennings

  • Described India as a federation with a strong centralising tendency.

  • Said the Constitution is mainly federal but has safeguards for unity.

Alexandrowicz

  • Said Indian federalism is “sui generis”, meaning unique.

Granville Austin

  • Called Indian federalism “cooperative federalism”.

  • States are not mere agents of the Centre.

  • Described it as a new type of federation suited to India’s needs.

4. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s View

  • India has a dual polity: Union and states.

  • Both Union and states:

    • Are created by the Constitution.

    • Derive powers directly from the Constitution.

  • States are not subordinate to the Centre.

  • The Constitution can function as federal or unitary depending on circumstances.

  • Centralisation criticism is based on misunderstanding.

  • Division of powers:

    • Is fixed by the Constitution.

    • Cannot be altered unilaterally by the Centre.

  • Union and states are co-equal in their respective spheres.

5. Supreme Court’s View – Bommai Case (1994)

  • Federalism is a basic feature of the Constitution.

  • States have:

    • Independent constitutional existence: States exist because of the Constitution, not because the Centre allows them. The Centre cannot treat states like its offices or departments 

    • Supreme authority within their allotted sphere: In subjects given to states (State List), states have full authority. The Centre cannot interfere unnecessarily in these matters

  • Emergency provisions do not destroy federalism.

  • Indian federalism is: 

    • Based on principle, not administrative convenience.

    • Rooted in India’s historical and social realities.

It is a deliberate constitutional choice made by the makers of the Constitution

In the Bommai case (1994), the Supreme Court held that federalism is a basic feature of the Constitution, states have independent authority in their spheres, and temporary central dominance during emergencies does not destroy India’s federal structure.

6. Indian Federalism as a Compromise

Indian federalism balances:

  • State autonomy in normal times.

  • Strong Centre during emergencies to protect national unity.

7. Trends Showing Federal Spirit in Practice

  • Inter-state boundary disputes
    → States argue with each other about borders
    → Example: Maharashtra and Karnataka fighting over Belagavi
    ✔ Shows states are separate political units, not controlled fully by Centre

  • Inter-state river water disputes
    → States fight over sharing rivers
    → Example: Cauvery water dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu
    ✔ Shows states defend their own interests

  • Rise of regional parties
    → Parties that focus only on one state come to power
    → Example: DMK in Tamil Nadu, TDP in Andhra Pradesh
    ✔ Shows states have political independence

  • Creation of new states
    → New states formed to meet regional demands
    → Example: Telangana, Jharkhand, Mizoram
    ✔ Shows Constitution allows regional aspirations

  • States demanding more money from Centre
    → States ask Centre for higher grants and funds
    ✔ Shows states negotiate, not obey blindly

  • States opposing Centre’s interference
    → States resist when Centre interferes too much
    ✔ Shows states assert autonomy

  • Supreme Court limiting Article 356
    → Court stopped misuse of President’s Rule by Centre
    ✔ Protects states from unfair dismissal

8. Conclusion

  • Indian federalism is neither purely federal nor purely unitary.

  • It is flexible, unique, and adaptive, designed to meet India’s diverse and changing needs.

  • Best described as cooperative and pragmatic federalism.

Post a Comment