Author: Shaan Shaikh, Kirit P Mehta School of Law Navi Mumbai (NMIMS)
To the Point
This article explores the ongoing conflict between federalism and centralization in Indian politics. It critically examines how constitutional provisions meant to ensure a balance of power are being tested by increasing central control. Through legal analysis, political developments, and case references, the article evaluates whether India’s federal structure is evolving, eroding, or merely adapting to contemporary governance challenges.
Use of Legal Jargon
Quasi-Federal Structure – Describes India’s unique federal framework that blends elements of both federal and unitary systems.
Constitutional Supremacy – The principle that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, guiding the distribution of powers.
Seventh Schedule – Indian Constitution clearly lays out which subjects the Union and State governments can make laws on, and also includes a Concurrent List for matters where both can legislate.
Doctrine of Separation of Powers – Though primarily applied to the three branches of government, it also impacts Centre-State dynamics.
Article 356 – President’s Rule – A controversial provision enabling the Centre to assume control of a state, often criticized for central overreach.
Federalism Jurisprudence – The body of legal interpretation by the judiciary that clarifies the scope and limits of federal principles in India.
Union List Dominance – Reflects the constitutional bias towards central authority on key subjects of national importance.
Constitutional Amendments – Used as instruments to shift the balance of power, sometimes criticized for diluting state autonomy.
Legislative Competence – The authority of a legislature to enact laws on a subject as allocated by the Constitution.
Cooperative Federalism – A modern governance ideal where Centre and States work collaboratively rather than competitively.
The Proof
Constitutional Structure
The Indian Constitution establishes a quasi-federal framework wherein Articles 245–263 outline the distribution of powers between the Centre and the States.
Seventh Schedule:
The Union List (List I) contains more subjects (97 originally) than the State List (List II) (66), indicating constitutional preference for central authority. Additionally, in case of a conflict in the Concurrent List (List III), the Union law prevails under Article 254.
Emergency Provisions (Articles 352–360):
When a National Emergency is declared, the central government gains the authority to make laws even on subjects that usually fall under the State List. Article 356 (President’s Rule) has been controversially used over 130 times, especially during the 1970s and 1980s, often to dismiss opposition-ruled state governments.
GST Regime (101st Constitutional Amendment, 2016):
While GST promotes cooperative federalism, it also represents fiscal centralization, as the GST Council dominated by the Centre has the final say in tax matters, limiting state autonomy.
Central Schemes and Funds:
The increasing reliance of states on centrally-sponsored schemes (like PMAY, Jal Jeevan Mission) and delayed GST compensation reflect fiscal dependency, thereby weakening economic federalism.
Recent Political Examples:
Delhi Government vs. Lt. Governor (NCT of Delhi Case, 2023): The Supreme Court emphasized that the elected government must have control over ‘services’, reinforcing state autonomy.
Farm Laws Controversy (2020–2021): Central laws on agriculture a State subject triggered protests, showing the tension between federal domains and central legislative ambition.
Judicial Stand:
The judiciary has often played the role of a federal watchdog, but its rulings (e.g., Kesavananda Bharati case) also affirm that Parliament cannot alter the basic structure which includes federalism.
Abstract
The Indian Constitution sets up a federal system, but with a clear tilt towards central authority aiming to keep the country united while still respecting its regional differences. However, over time, the delicate balance between federalism and centralization has increasingly tilted toward central dominance, raising concerns about the erosion of state autonomy. This article critically examines the constitutional framework governing Centre-State relations, the judicial interpretation of federal principles, and the evolving political trends that have shaped this dynamic. By analyzing key constitutional provisions, landmark judgments, and recent political developments, the article seeks to unravel whether India is truly functioning as a cooperative federation or slipping into a centralized polity. The analysis also explores the implications of centralizing tendencies on democratic governance, fiscal federalism, and the spirit of constitutionalism.
Case Laws
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Significance: A landmark judgment by the Supreme Court confirmed that federalism is not just a feature, but an essential part of the Constitution’s basic structure. The Supreme Court laid down strict guidelines for invoking Article 356 (President’s Rule), preventing its arbitrary misuse to dismiss state governments.
State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1963)
Significance: Reaffirmed the supremacy of Parliament in legislative matters and held that the Union has greater legislative competence than states, emphasizing India’s quasi-federal character.
Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006)
Significance: Upheld the amendment allowing open ballot in Rajya Sabha elections and interpreted the unitary tilt in India’s federal setup, citing that states are not sovereign entities.
Union of India v. H.S. Dhillon (1972)
Significance: Held that Parliament has the power to legislate on residuary subjects, reinforcing central legislative supremacy.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Significance: Introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine; explicitly recognized federalism as a core feature of the Constitution that cannot be abrogated even by constitutional amendment.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2018 & 2023)
Significance: This judgment clarified how powers are shared between the elected Delhi government and the Lieutenant Governor, outlining who gets to decide what. Reaffirmed that an elected government must have control over services in the absence of a specific exclusion by Parliament a strong statement on state autonomy within a union territory.
Rajendra N. Shah v. Union of India (2021)
Significance: Struck down parts of the 97th Constitutional Amendment relating to cooperative societies, stating that it intruded on the exclusive domain of the states, reinforcing federal values.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)
Significance: While not directly on federalism, the Court reiterated that constitutional morality must guide the interpretation of the Constitution a principle often invoked in federal disputes.
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977)
Significance: Upheld the power of the Centre to dismiss state governments under Article 356, but laid the groundwork for later limitations established in the S.R. Bommai case.
Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006) 2 SCC1
Significance: Declared the dissolution of the Bihar Assembly unconstitutional, emphasizing that state legislative assemblies cannot be dissolved without floor testing, thereby protecting democratic federalism.
Conclusion
The Indian political and constitutional framework was crafted to strike a delicate balance between unity and diversity between national integration and regional autonomy. However, over the decades, the practical operation of this framework has revealed a clear tilt toward centralization, often at the cost of federal principles. While certain degrees of central control may be necessary for national cohesion and uniformity in policy, excessive centralization undermines the spirit of cooperative federalism and weakens the autonomy of states. Judicial pronouncements have repeatedly reinforced that federalism is part of the Constitution’s basic structure and must be preserved against arbitrary encroachments. Going forward, genuine respect for federal values, greater fiscal devolution, and increased Centre–State collaboration are essential to strengthen democratic governance and constitutional morality in Indian politics. The future of Indian federalism lies not in confrontation, but in constructive cooperation.
FAQS
Q1: What is federalism in the Indian context?
A: Federalism in India means that the Constitution divides powers and duties between the central government and the states, so both can govern within their own areas. However, India follows a quasi-federal model with a strong unitary bias, meaning the Centre retains more power than the states.
Q2: How does the Constitution of India ensure federalism?
A: The Constitution ensures federalism through provisions like the Seventh Schedule, which divides legislative powers between the Union and the States via three lists: Union, State, and Concurrent. Articles 245 to 263 govern Centre–State relations.
Q3: What is meant by centralization in Indian politics?
A: Centralization refers to the concentration of power in the hands of the Union government, often at the cost of state autonomy. This can happen through overuse of Article 356, control over finance, overriding state laws, or administrative dominance.
Q4: Which landmark case affirmed federalism as part of the Constitution’s basic structure?
A: In the landmark 1994 case of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, the Supreme Court ruled that federalism is a core part of the Constitution’s basic structure, meaning it cannot be altered or undermined.
Q5: What is cooperative federalism and why is it important?
A: Cooperative federalism refers to a governance approach where the Centre and States work together as partners in policy-making and implementation, instead of competing for power. It promotes inclusive and balanced development.
Q6: How does the GST regime affect federalism?
A: The Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, while promoting uniform taxation, has led to fiscal centralization, as the GST Council dominated by the Centre controls key decisions, reducing states’ fiscal autonomy.
Q7: Can Parliament legislate on State List subjects?
A: Usually, Parliament can’t make laws on subjects in the State List. But in special situations like during a national emergency, if the Rajya Sabha passes a resolution under Article 249, or when states give their consent under Article 252 it can step in and legislate on those matters.
Q8: Has centralization increased in recent years?
A: Yes. Many scholars and political analysts argue that there is a growing trend of centralization in India, particularly through the use of centrally sponsored schemes, erosion of fiscal federalism, and encroachment into State subjects.
Q9: How has the judiciary responded to the federalism-centralization debate?
A: The judiciary has played a crucial role in safeguarding federalism, especially through judgments like Bommai, NCT of Delhi, and Rajendra N. Shah. However, its role has also been criticized for not always drawing firm lines on Centre–State boundaries.
Q10: Why is the debate between federalism and centralization relevant today?
A: As India faces complex governance challenges, the balance between a strong Centre and empowered States is more critical than ever. Ensuring genuine federalism is vital for protecting democratic values, regional identity, and efficient governance.
