Indian Federalism and Its Models
Political scientists classify governments as unitary or federal based on the relationship between the national and regional authorities. In a unitary system, all powers reside with the national government, and any regional bodies derive their authority solely from it. Examples include Britain, France, Japan, China, Italy, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, and Spain. By contrast, a federal system divides powers constitutionally between the national and regional governments, allowing each to function independently within their domains. Nations like the United States, Switzerland, Australia, Canada, Russia, Brazil, and Argentina follow this model. Here, the national authority is termed the federal, central, or union government, while regional units are known as state or provincial governments.
The word "federation" derives from the Latin foedus, meaning "treaty" or "agreement," reflecting how such systems emerge from voluntary pacts among independent units. These units go by various names—states in the US, cantons in Switzerland, provinces in Canada, or republics in Russia. Federations can form through integration, where weaker independent states unite for strength, as in the US (originally 13 states, now 50, established in 1787 after the American Revolution of 1775–83); or through disintegration, where a large unitary state devolves autonomy to regions, as in Canada (originally four provinces, now 10, formed in 1867).
India's Constitution establishes a federal framework, chosen by the framers for the country's vast size and profound socio-cultural diversity. This structure promotes efficient governance while balancing national unity with regional autonomy. Notably, the term "federation" does not appear anywhere in the document. Instead, Article 1 describes India as a "Union of States." As Dr. B.R. Ambedkar explained, this phrasing underscores two key points: unlike the American model, India's Union did not arise from an agreement among states, and the states lack any right to secede. The Union, he emphasized, is indestructible.
India's federalism draws primarily from the Canadian model rather than the American one, emphasizing a strong center. Similarities include its formation through disintegration, the use of "Union" (as in Canada), and a clear centralizing tendency that allocates greater powers to the national government over the states.
Federal Features of the Indian Constitution
The Constitution of India embodies a distinctive federal framework, balancing authority between the Union and the states. Its core federal features are outlined below.
Dual Polity
The Indian Constitution lays the foundation for a dual polity, seamlessly dividing powers between the Union government at the center and the states at the periphery. This federal arrangement assigns sovereign authority to each level within clearly delineated domains, ensuring coordinated governance across the nation. The Union government shoulders responsibilities vital to national unity and security, such as defence, foreign affairs, currency, and communications. State governments, by contrast, focus on regional and local priorities, including public order, agriculture, public health, and local administration. This division fosters both centralized strength and decentralized responsiveness, embodying the essence of India's federal democracy.
2. Written Constitution
India's Constitution is a meticulously drafted written document, and it holds the distinction of being the longest in the world. When adopted in 1950, it featured a Preamble, 395 Articles grouped into 22 Parts, and 8 Schedules. Over time, through numerous amendments, it has expanded significantly: as of 2019, it encompasses a Preamble, nearly 470 Articles organized into 25 Parts, and 12 Schedules.
This comprehensive framework clearly delineates the structure, organization, powers, and functions of both the central and state governments. Equally important, it sets precise limits on their authority, fostering clarity and preventing conflicts or misunderstandings between the two levels of governance.
3. Division of Powers
The Indian Constitution establishes a clear division of legislative powers between the Union (Centre) and the states through the Seventh Schedule, which categorizes subjects into three lists: the Union List, the State List, and the Concurrent List. This framework ensures a balanced federal structure, assigning exclusive domains to each level of government while allowing some overlap.
The Union List includes 98 subjects—originally 97—such as defense, foreign affairs, and banking, over which only Parliament can legislate. The State List covers 59 subjects—down from an original 66—like police, public health, and agriculture, empowering state legislatures with primary authority. On the Concurrent List, with 52 subjects (originally 47) including education, forests, and marriage, both Parliament and state assemblies may enact laws. In the event of a conflict, however, the central law prevails, safeguarding national unity.
Residuary powers—those subjects not mentioned in any of the three lists—vest exclusively with the Centre, giving Parliament flexibility to address emerging issues beyond the enumerated domains.
4. Supremacy of the Constitution
At the heart of India's legal framework lies the Constitution, which stands as the supreme law of the land. Every law passed by Parliament at the Centre or by state legislatures must align with its provisions; any deviation invites invalidation by the Supreme Court or High Courts exercising their power of judicial review. This principle ensures that all branches of government—legislative, executive, and judicial—operate strictly within the boundaries set by the Constitution, safeguarding its authority over both central and state institutions.
5. Rigid Constitution
A rigid amendment process is essential to safeguard the Constitution's division of powers and its supreme authority over all laws. This rigidity shines through in provisions touching the federal framework—particularly Centre-state relations and the judicial setup—which demand collaborative effort from both the Union and state governments. Amending these requires a special majority in Parliament, coupled with ratification by legislatures in at least half the states, ensuring that no unilateral change undermines India's federal balance.
6. Independent Judiciary
The Indian Constitution establishes an independent judiciary, with the Supreme Court at its apex, to fulfill two vital functions. First, it safeguards the supremacy of the Constitution through the power of judicial review, enabling courts to strike down laws or executive actions that violate constitutional principles. Second, it resolves disputes between the Union government (the Centre) and the states, or among states themselves, ensuring federal harmony.
To shield the judiciary from political interference, the Constitution incorporates robust safeguards. These include security of tenure for judges—protecting them from arbitrary removal—along with fixed service conditions that cannot be altered to their disadvantage, and other measures that collectively insulate the courts from executive or legislative influence.
7. Bicameralism
India's Constitution establishes a bicameral Parliament, featuring two distinct houses: the upper house, known as the Rajya Sabha (Council of States), and the lower house, the Lok Sabha (House of the People). The Lok Sabha serves as the direct voice of the Indian people as a whole, reflecting their popular will through direct elections. In contrast, the Rajya Sabha represents the states and union territories, ensuring their unique interests find expression in national lawmaking. Though less powerful than the Lok Sabha—with limited veto powers and no control over money bills—the Rajya Sabha plays an indispensable role in upholding federal equilibrium. It acts as a vital check against the Centre's potential overreach, protecting states from undue central interference and fostering a balanced union.
Unitary Features of the Indian Constitution
Although the Indian Constitution prominently displays federal characteristics—as outlined earlier—it also embeds several unitary or non-federal elements. These provisions reinforce a strong central authority, reflecting the document's quasi-federal balance designed to ensure national unity amid diversity.
Strong Centre
The Indian Constitution crafts a federal structure that decisively favors the Centre, rendering the division of powers inequitable from a purely federal perspective. This inherent tilt manifests in multiple ways, ensuring central dominance. The Union List includes a far greater number of subjects than the State List, granting the Centre expansive legislative reach. Even more crucially, the most vital domains fall squarely under Union control.
The Centre's supremacy extends to the Concurrent List, where it enjoys overriding authority—its laws supersede state legislation in any conflict. Residuary powers, covering matters not enumerated in any list, also vest exclusively with the Centre, unlike in the United States, where they reside with the states. Through these mechanisms, the Constitution forges an exceptionally strong central authority, prioritizing national unity over balanced federalism.
States Without Territorial Integrity
India's federal system stands apart from many others in a fundamental way: its states lack any constitutional right to territorial integrity. Parliament wields unilateral authority to redraw the area, boundaries, or even the name of any state—a power exercised through straightforward legislation requiring only a simple majority in both Houses, rather than a special majority. This asymmetry highlights the essence of the Indian Union as an indestructible Union of destructible states. By contrast, the American federation embodies an indestructible Union of indestructible states, where such changes demand far greater consensus and respect state boundaries more rigidly.
Single Constitution
In most federal systems, states enjoy the autonomy to draft their own constitutions, distinct from the central government's framework. India, however, adopts a markedly different approach. States here lack the authority to create separate constitutions. Instead, the Constitution of India serves as a unified document that encompasses provisions for both the Union (Centre) and the states. This single framework binds all levels of government, ensuring uniformity in their operations and powers.
The sole historical exception was Jammu and Kashmir, which operated under its own state constitution until the special provisions were abrogated. This distinctive feature underscores India's quasi-federal structure, blending federal principles with a strong unitary tilt.
4. Flexibility of the Constitution
One of the standout features of the Indian Constitution is its relative flexibility in the amendment process, making it less rigid than those in many other federal systems. Unlike the more cumbersome procedures elsewhere, the vast majority of its provisions can be altered through the unilateral action of Parliament alone—requiring either a simple majority or a special majority, as laid out under Article 368. Adding to this central authority, the power to initiate any constitutional amendment rests exclusively with the Union Parliament, or the Centre; states have no role in proposing changes. This contrasts sharply with the United States, where states themselves can propose amendments, underscoring India's more streamlined, Centre-driven approach to constitutional evolution.
5. No Equality of State Representation
India's Rajya Sabha, the upper house of Parliament, allocates seats to states strictly on the basis of population, resulting in significant variation—from as few as one member for smaller states like Sikkim to 31 for larger ones like Uttar Pradesh. This approach reflects the federal structure's emphasis on proportional representation. In stark contrast, the United States fully embraces equality in its Senate, granting exactly two senators to each of the 50 states, for a fixed total of 100 members. This principle serves as a vital safeguard for smaller states, ensuring their voices carry equal weight against more populous counterparts and preventing dominance by larger entities.
6. Emergency Provisions
The Indian Constitution empowers the government to declare three distinct types of emergencies: national, state, and financial. These provisions grant the Union (Central) government sweeping authority, effectively placing states under its complete control. In essence, they enable a seamless shift from India's federal structure—characterized by a division of powers between the Centre and states—to a unitary one, without the need for any formal constitutional amendment. This extraordinary mechanism sets the Indian federation apart from all others in the world.
7. Single Citizenship
Despite its federal structure—featuring both Union and state governments—the Constitution of India, like Canada's, embraces a unified system of single citizenship. Citizens hold only Indian citizenship, with no distinct state-level citizenship. This ensures that every Indian enjoys identical rights and privileges nationwide, regardless of their state of birth or residence.
By contrast, federations such as the United States, Switzerland, and Australia operate dual citizenship systems, where individuals possess both national and state (or provincial) citizenships.
8. Integrated Judiciary
India's Constitution establishes a unified integrated judicial system, with the Supreme Court at its apex and the High Courts of the states positioned just below. This single, cohesive hierarchy of courts enforces both Union laws and state laws, ensuring uniformity and seamless access to justice across the country.
By contrast, the United States maintains a dual judicial system, where federal courts exclusively handle federal laws, while a separate network of state courts deals with state laws. This fundamental difference underscores India's emphasis on judicial centralization to uphold the Constitution's overarching authority.
9. All-India Services
Unlike the United States, where federal and state governments maintain entirely separate public services, India adopts a hybrid approach. While the Centre and the states each have their own distinct civil services, India introduces a unique layer: the All-India Services—namely the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), Indian Police Service (IPS), and Indian Forest Service (IFS). These services are shared between the Centre and the states, with officers serving in both central and state capacities as needed.
The Centre holds primary responsibility for recruiting and training members of these services through the Union Public Service Commission, and it retains ultimate disciplinary and promotional control over them. This centralized oversight ensures uniformity in administration across the diverse federal structure of India. However, it also raises a key constitutional debate: by concentrating such authority at the national level, the All-India Services arguably depart from the pure principle of federalism, which emphasizes autonomous spheres for central and state governments.
10. Integrated Audit Machinery
India's Comptroller and Auditor-General (CAG) embodies a distinctly integrated approach to public auditing, overseeing the accounts of both the Central government and the states. This unified oversight ensures comprehensive scrutiny across federal levels. Yet, it also introduces a centralizing element: the CAG's appointment and removal rest solely with the President, bypassing any consultation with state governments. As a result, this structure inherently curbs the financial autonomy of the states. By comparison, the American Comptroller-General plays no role in auditing state accounts, allowing greater fiscal independence at the subnational level.
Parliamentary Override on State List
Even within the domains assigned exclusively to them under the State List, states lack absolute legislative autonomy. Parliament holds a significant override power: it can enact laws on any State List subject if the Rajya Sabha passes a resolution affirming that such legislation is necessary or expedient in the national interest. This mechanism effectively expands Parliament's legislative reach without the need for a constitutional amendment—and remarkably, it can be invoked even outside any emergency provisions. Thus, the Centre retains a vital tool to address pressing national concerns while respecting the federal structure.
Governor: Appointment, Tenure and Role
The Governor serves as the constitutional head of a state and is appointed by the President of India. This appointment underscores the Governor's tenure, which lasts during the pleasure of the President—effectively at the Union's discretion, without a fixed term. Beyond this ceremonial role, the Governor functions as an agent of the Centre, enabling the Union Government to maintain oversight and exert control over state administration.
This arrangement draws from the Canadian model, where provincial Lieutenant Governors are appointed by federal authority, rather than the American system, which vests states with directly elected governors.
13. Integrated Election Machinery
India's Election Commission embodies a uniquely integrated approach to electoral administration, overseeing elections not only to Parliament but also to state legislative assemblies and councils. This centralized body is appointed entirely by the President, leaving states with no role in its constitution—a structure that underscores national oversight in a federal system. The same holds true for the removal of its members, ensuring uniformity and independence from regional pressures. By contrast, the United States employs separate electoral machineries for federal and state-level polls, reflecting its more decentralized federalism.
14. Veto Over State Bills
In India's federal framework, the Governor serves as a vital link between state and Union governments by reserving certain bills—passed by the state legislature—for the President's consideration. This authority enables the President to withhold assent to these bills not only on their first presentation but also if they are resubmitted. As a result, the President wields an absolute veto over such state legislation, distinct from a mere suspensive veto that could be overridden later.
This arrangement underscores India's unique quasi-federal structure. By contrast, in the United States and Australia, states operate with substantial autonomy in their spheres, and no equivalent mechanism exists for reserving state bills for central executive review.
Critical Evaluation of the Indian Federal System
India's Constitution departs significantly from classical federal models like those in the United States, Switzerland, or Australia by incorporating numerous unitary features that tilt power toward the Centre. This centralizing tendency has led constitutional scholars to question its federal credentials. K.C. Wheare, a prominent theorist, labeled it quasi-federal, arguing that "the Indian Union is a unitary state with subsidiary federal features rather than a federal state with subsidiary unitary features."
K. Santhanam attributed this unitary bias to two key factors: the Centre's dominance in financial matters, leaving states reliant on central grants, and the influential role of the erstwhile Planning Commission in steering state-level development. He noted that India has "practically functioned as a unitary state," even as the Union and states maintained a formal federal structure.
Yet, not all experts concur. Paul Appleby described the system as "extremely federal," while Morris-Jones called it "bargaining federalism." Ivor Jennings viewed it as "a federation with a strong centralising tendency," emphasizing that it remains "mainly federal" with unique safeguards for national unity and growth. Alexandrowicz deemed India "sui generis"—unique in character—while Granville Austin championed it as "cooperative federalism." Austin acknowledged the strong Centre but stressed that states retain real authority, not mere administrative roles, crafting "a new kind of federation to meet India’s peculiar needs."
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the architect of the Constitution, defended its federal essence in the Constituent Assembly. He explained that it establishes a dual polity where both Union and states derive authority directly from the Constitution, neither as a loose league nor as subordinate agencies. Rejecting charges of over-centralization, Ambedkar clarified: "The basic principle of federalism is that legislative and executive authority is partitioned between the Centre and the states... by the Constitution itself." States and Centre are coequals in their domains, and the Centre cannot unilaterally alter this balance—a point the judiciary upholds.
This federal character gained judicial sanctity in the S.R. Bommai case (1994), where the Supreme Court declared federalism a basic feature of the Constitution. The Court affirmed that states possess an independent constitutional stature, supreme within their spheres, and are not mere appendages of the Centre. Temporary overrides during emergencies are exceptions, not the rule, underscoring federalism as a principle rooted in India's unique history and realities.
At its core, Indian federalism reconciles two imperatives: granting states autonomy in routine governance and empowering a robust Union for national integrity during crises. This dynamic manifests in practice through territorial disputes (such as Maharashtra-Karnataka over Belgaum), inter-state river-water conflicts (like Karnataka-Tamil Nadu over the Cauvery), the rise of regional parties governing states like Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, the formation of new states to address regional aspirations (e.g., Mizoram and Jharkhand), states' demands for greater central financial aid, their assertions of autonomy against central overreach, and the Supreme Court's curbs on Article 356 (President's Rule). These trends vividly illustrate the federal spirit animating India's political system.