Article on "Is the Indian Constitution federal in nature?" by Arbuda Singh

By Arbuda Singh, 

BBA LLB-3rd year/6th semester, 

Mody University, Rajasthan 

Is the Indian Constitution federal in nature?

 

Indian Constitution's quasi-federal Character

The question of whether India's Constitution is entirely federal or unitary seems to have been a source of controversy among academics. However, the Indian constitution has elements of something like a federal and a unitary constitution. But, in order to have a good image of this result, we must first understand what the federal and unitary constitutions are. What characteristics of the Indian constitution characterize it federal or unitary?

In a federal system, there are two levels of government, each with its own set of authorities and responsibilities. The federal and state governments collaborate while acting autonomously at the same time. In other respects, the federal polity offers a constitutional mechanism for establishing unity in diversity and achieving common national goals.

Federalism requires the prevention and resolution of conflicts between the interests of the central government and the states. And that is why India's federalism was designed with a strong central government. The Indian Constitution includes federal elements, even though it does not seek to form a federation.

The delegates debated whether the Indian Constitution could be classified as a federal constitution. This issue cannot be answered without first delving into the definition of federalism and the characteristics that distinguish a federal state.

 

The Indian Constitution's Federal Characteristics

The suprema lex is the constitution. The Constitution of India is the ultimate law of the nation, including rules, regulations, bylaws, notices, orders, ordinances, and even customs with legal effect. The Constitution is the source of a federal state's existence. The Constitution regulates and subordinates all forms of authority, whether they are legislative, administrative, or judicial, as well as whether they are at the federal or state level.

Article 13(2) means that the state shall not enact any legislation that strips away or contravenes any of the protections offered in Part III of the Constitution, and so any law that does so is void to the degree that it does so. As a result, while the Constitution is regarded as superior in India, the idea of constitutional supremacy is not something to implement or abide by simply in theory.

Our Constitution includes an inspiring Preamble that reflects the Indian people's needs and dreams, as well as a paragraph on Directive Principles of State Policy that outlines how the people's goals can be achieved through legislative action while maintaining citizens' Fundamental Rights, which will only be suspended under extreme circumstances.

 

Perspective from our Constitution

A written constitution is required for a federal system to exist. Because the United Kingdom lacks a formal constitution, it is not a federal state. In a federal system, the states gather together and sign a treaty, and the provisions of the treaty must be written down in the form of a bill of rights. There is no doubting that a written Constitution ensures that the country's general government is stable. There will be confusion, misunderstandings, and disputes between the Centre and the States since there is no written Constitution specifying the scope of both the authorities of the Centre and the States. The Centre and the States will strive to violate each other's level of authority.

The Independent Tribunal is tasked with resolving conflicts between the Centre and the States. Throughout India, the Supreme Court is the governmental tribunal that has the power to resolve all conflicts here between Centre and state as per Article 131, with the exception of Inter-State Water Disputes, over which the parliament is required to establish an ad hoc tribunal to remedy a specific water dispute between two states, like the Kauveri Water Disputes Tribunal, that is currently dealing with the water dispute among Kerala and Tamil Nadu.

The Central Government's ability to establish a separate tribunal is a minor but essential unitary characteristic. A Bedgaon Border dispute lawsuit is now pending before the Supreme Court. It is a dispute between Maharashtra and Karnataka, with Maharashtra claiming that because the bulk of people in the area speak Marathi, the territory pertains to Maharashtra, and Karnataka claiming otherwise. As a result, an impartial court is a necessary element of the federal government.

 

Unitary Character of Indian Cinstitution

The Indian Constitution's Unitary Characteristics

The Indian Constitution establishes a dual polity in which the Central Government is neither union of States and nor States are now the Central Government's administrative divisions or agencies since they have their separate constitutional existence. The Indian Constitution, on the other hand, contains some significant centralizing tendencies that give the central government the most authority. There are historical grounds for this centralised control: the Constitution was drafted at the period of India's partition, and the framers reasoned that if the central authority was weak, the country would disintegrate.

 

The Philadelphia Conference, which resulted in the creation of the United States Constitution, included the term Union, which was purposefully included in order to make this a more stable World. Perhaps the purpose of the Constituent Assembly in inserting the word Union was to convey the impression that it would be an unbreakable union. They had to be worried about the Indian Union becoming a Balkanized mess. The Constituent Assembly's policy so established had an inherent bias on the part of centralization, i.e. an unified spirit.

A typical unitary system is administered constitutionally as a single entity, with a single legislature formed under the constitution. All power is distributed from the top down. A political entity is a sovereign state administered as a single entity, with the central government ruling supreme and administratively divisions (subnational entities) exercising solely the powers delegated by the central government. There are certain unitary elements in the Indian Constitution as well, which make it Quasi-Federal in form —

 

As per the Article 1

Article 1 declares India, or Bharat, to be a federation of states. It's worth debating whether or not the usage of the word "union" was intentional. As a result, the Governor is not meant to be an agent of the federal government's governing party. The dismissal of the Assembly was deemed illegal by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court of India decided in B.P. Singhal v Union of India that a Governor cannot be dismissed by the Central government because he does not agree with the Central government's policies or the governing party's philosophy. This cannot be the grounds for the Governor's dismissal by the Central government, as that would be arbitrary or malicious.

 

As a result, the Indian Constitution's capacity to choose Governors who would be the heads of their respective States is an essential unitary element.

The Indian Constitution established a permanent, homogeneous citizenship for the whole country. In a federal union like the United States of America, residents have dual citizenship, meaning they owe allegiance to both the states first but the union second. However, even though India is a federal union, it has a single citizenship. It suggests that all Indian nationals owe the Indian Union their allegiance. Any citizen, regardless of his or her place of origin or residency, is entitled to individual rights in all of India's states of the country.

The Indian Constitution somehow doesn't recognized state identity, and therefore no distinction exists between citizens of sovereign states, apart from Jammu and Kashmir. No one other than a legal resident of Kashmir can buy land in Kashmir; however, this is only a temporary measure that will be lifted once Kashmir is completely incorporated into the Indian Union. Fundamental Rights are a claim that all citizens share.

 

Unitary form

Unlike the federal system, which has a split system of courts, India has a unified judicial with the Supreme Court at its pinnacle. In our unitary legal system, the Supreme Court is the highest court.

 

It has been attempted, to the best of its ability, to maintain its independence and fulfill the aim of guaranteeing justice. The Supreme Court functions as a significant uniting influence because of its position at the top of the judicial pyramid. We've seen that its rulings and judgements are enforceable in any Indian court. As a result, the whole legal system of the country has a strong chance of unity, uniformity, and cohesiveness.

 

The Union Government appoints key positions along with Chief Election Commissioner, Secretary and Auditor General, and All India Service such as IAS and IPS have been established and are under the Union's jurisdiction.

 

In the case of Indian States, voting in the government is indeed not equal, as it is in a real republic such as the United States. In India, the Rajya Sabha has uneven representation of states. States do not have equality in the Rajya Sabha. Per the Schedule 4, the number of states represented ranges from two to thirty-one. The state of Uttar Pradesh has the most representatives, with 31, although several North-Eastern states only had one.

 

Point of view

“It wouldn't really matter if the Constitution is in accordance with the books guidelines of federalism as long as it helps the purpose,” the Supreme Court said so in Kuldip Nair v Union of India. The concern in that case is there was an abode requisite in Rajya Sabha elections previously, which was eliminated by a revision in 2003, and it was then contended that the executive order violated federalism. The Supreme Court ruled that a particular kind of federalism or a model similar to that of the United States may not be included in the Indian Constitution's basic framework. Indian Federalism is one-of-a-kind in that it is adapted to the country's distinct demands.

Dr. Ambedkar, the President of the Drafting Committee, correctly stated, "Our Constitution should be both unitary and federal as per the necessities of time and situation." The Drafting Committee sought to make it clear that, while India is a federation, it was not formed as a result of a consensual agreement among the states. Though the world is divided into numerous states, this is mostly for administrative considerations and has no impact on the country's ability to function as a single unit.

Finally, a close examination of the federal and unitary aspects of the constitution reveals that there's an eventual centralizing drive that existed in every federal characteristic. As a result, it is reasonable to conclude that its Indian Constitution is federated in form and unitary in purpose, i.e., it is quasi-federal in essence.