Political scientists categorize governments as unitary or federal based on the relationship between the national and regional governments. In a unitary government, all powers are centralized in the national government, and regional governments, if they exist, derive their authority from the national government. In contrast, a federal government divides powers between the national and regional governments through the Constitution, allowing each to operate independently within its jurisdiction.
Examples of countries with a unitary model include Britain, France, Japan, China, Italy, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, and Spain. Countries like the United States, Switzerland, Australia, Canada, Russia, Brazil, and Argentina follow the federal model. In federal systems, the national government is referred to as the Federal, Central, or Union government, while regional governments are known as state or provincial governments.
Table of Contents
Comparative Study of Federalism and Unitarianism
| Feature | Federal Government | Unitary Government |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Structure of Government | Dual government (national and regional governments) | Single government (national government may create regional ones) |
| 2. Constitution | Always written | May be written (e.g., France) or unwritten (e.g., Britain) |
| 3. Division of Powers | Powers are divided between national and regional governments | No division of powers; all powers are vested in the national government |
| 4. Supremacy of Constitution | Constitution is supreme | Constitution may be supreme (e.g., Japan) or not (e.g., Britain) |
| 5. Flexibility of Constitution | Rigid Constitution | Constitution may be rigid (e.g., France) or flexible (e.g., Britain) |
| 6. Judiciary | Independent judiciary | Judiciary may or may not be independent |
| 7. Legislature | Bicameral legislature | Legislature may be bicameral (e.g., Britain) or unicameral (e.g., China) |
The term ‘federation’ is derived from the Latin word foedus, meaning ‘treaty’ or ‘agreement.’ A federation is a political system formed through a treaty or agreement between various units. These units are referred to by different names in different federations, such as states (in the US), cantons (in Switzerland), provinces (in Canada), or republics (in Russia).
Federations can be created in two ways: integration or disintegration. In the first case, smaller, militarily weak, or economically backward independent states come together to form a stronger union, such as the United States. In the second case, a large unitary state transitions into a federation by granting autonomy to its provinces to address regional interests, as seen in Canada.
The United States is the first and oldest federation, established in 1787 after the American Revolution (1775–83). Initially comprising 13 states, it now includes 50 states and is often considered the model of federalism. The Canadian Federation, formed in 1867, initially included 4 provinces and now comprises 10 provinces.
In India, the Constitution provides for a federal system of government, adopted primarily due to the country’s vast size and socio-cultural diversity. The framers of the Constitution recognized that federalism would ensure efficient governance while balancing national unity with regional autonomy.
Interestingly, the term ‘federation’ does not appear in the Indian Constitution. Instead, Article 1 describes India as a ‘Union of States.’ Dr. B.R. Ambedkar explained that this term was chosen to emphasize two key points:
- The Indian federation was not formed through an agreement among states, unlike the American federation.
- The states do not have the right to secede from the Union, making it an indestructible federation.
The Indian federal system is based on the Canadian model rather than the American model. The Canadian model establishes a strong central government, which aligns with India’s system. Similarities between the Indian and Canadian federations include:
- Formation through disintegration (granting autonomy to provinces).
- The preference for the term ‘Union’ (Canada also refers to itself as a ‘Union’).
- A centralizing tendency, with more powers vested in the center compared to the states.
Federalism in the Indian Constitution
- Dual Polity: The Constitution establishes a dual polity, comprising the Union government at the Centre and state governments at the periphery. Each level has sovereign powers within its respective jurisdiction as defined by the Constitution. The Union government handles matters of national importance, such as defense, foreign affairs, currency, and communications. In contrast, state governments address regional and local concerns, including public order, agriculture, health, and local governance.
- Written Constitution: The Indian Constitution is a written document and the longest in the world. Originally, it included a Preamble, 395 Articles divided into 22 Parts, and 8 Schedules. As of 2019, it contains a Preamble, approximately 470 Articles in 25 Parts, and 12 Schedules. It clearly defines the structure, organization, powers, and functions of both Central and state governments while setting limits to avoid misunderstandings or disputes between the two.
- Division of Powers: The Constitution distributes powers between the Centre and the states through the Union List, State List, and Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule.
- The Union List comprises 98 subjects (originally 97), including defense and foreign affairs.
- The State List contains 59 subjects (originally 66), such as public health and agriculture.
- The Concurrent List has 52 subjects (originally 47), like education and forest management, on which both the Centre and states can legislate. However, in case of conflict, Central law prevails. Residuary powers (subjects not mentioned in any list) are vested in the Centre.
- Supremacy of the Constitution: The Constitution is the highest law of the land. All laws enacted by the Centre and states must conform to its provisions. Laws violating the Constitution can be declared invalid by the Supreme Court or High Courts through judicial review. Consequently, all organs of government—legislative, executive, and judicial—must function within the Constitution’s framework.
- Rigid Constitution: The federal structure and constitutional supremacy are maintained through a partially rigid amendment process. Provisions related to the federal structure (e.g., Centre-state relations and judicial organization) can only be amended with the joint participation of both the Centre and states. Such amendments require a special majority in Parliament and the approval of at least half of the state legislatures.
- Independent Judiciary: An independent judiciary, led by the Supreme Court, ensures constitutional supremacy and resolves disputes between the Centre and states or among states. The Constitution includes provisions such as judges’ security of tenure and fixed service conditions to safeguard judicial independence from executive influence.
- Bicameralism: The Constitution establishes a bicameral legislature consisting of the Rajya Sabha (Upper House) and Lok Sabha (Lower House). The Rajya Sabha represents the states, while the Lok Sabha represents the people of India as a whole. Although less powerful, the Rajya Sabha is vital for maintaining federal balance by safeguarding the interests of states against undue interference by the Centre.
Unitarianism in the Indian Constitution
Despite its federal framework, the Indian Constitution incorporates several unitary or non-federal features:
- Strong Centre: The division of powers heavily favours the Centre, making it significantly stronger than the states:
- The Union List has more subjects than the State List.
- Key subjects of national importance are in the Union List.
- The Centre has overriding authority over the Concurrent List.
- Residuary powers are assigned to the Centre, unlike the U.S., where they rest with the states.
- States Not Indestructible: Indian states lack the right to territorial integrity. Parliament can alter the area, boundaries, or name of any state by unilateral action with only a simple majority. This makes India an “indestructible Union of destructible states,” unlike the U.S., which is an “indestructible Union of indestructible states.”
- Single Constitution: Unlike other federations where states can have their own constitutions, India operates under a single Constitution. Both the Centre and states function within this unified framework. The only exception was Jammu and Kashmir, which had a separate constitution until its special status was abrogated in 2019.
- Flexibility of the Constitution: India’s Constitution is less rigid compared to other federations. Most amendments can be enacted by Parliament through either a simple or special majority, without state involvement. In contrast, U.S. states can propose constitutional amendments.
- No Equality of State Representation: Representation in the Rajya Sabha is based on population, leading to disparities among states (e.g., membership varies from 1 to 31). In contrast, the U.S. Senate guarantees equal representation for all states, regardless of size.
- Emergency Provisions: The Constitution provides for three types of emergencies—national, state, and financial. During emergencies, the Centre assumes greater control, converting the federal structure into a unitary one without requiring formal amendments. Such a mechanism is unique to India.
- Single Citizenship: Despite having a dual polity, India follows the principle of single citizenship, as in Canada. All citizens share uniform rights across the country, unlike federations such as the U.S. and Australia, which have dual citizenship (national and state).
- Integrated Judiciary: India has an integrated judicial system with the Supreme Court at the apex and state high courts below it. This unified system enforces both Central and state laws. By contrast, the U.S. follows a dual judicial system, with separate federal and state courts.
- All-India Services: India has common all-India services (e.g., IAS, IPS, IFS) for both the Centre and states. These services are recruited and controlled by the Centre, limiting the states’ autonomy and deviating from the federal principle.
- Integrated Audit Machinery: The Comptroller and Auditor-General (CAG) audits the accounts of both the Centre and the states. However, the CAG’s appointment and removal are solely under the President’s authority, limiting the states’ financial autonomy. In the U.S., the federal audit authority has no jurisdiction over state accounts.
- Parliament’s Authority Over State List: The Parliament can legislate on matters in the State List if the Rajya Sabha passes a resolution in the national interest. This extends Parliament’s legislative competence without requiring a constitutional amendment, even outside emergencies.
- Appointment of Governor: The governor, the constitutional head of a state, is appointed by the President and serves at the President’s pleasure. Acting as the Centre’s agent, the governor allows the Centre to exercise control over states. This system mirrors Canada rather than the U.S., where states have elected heads.
- Integrated Election Machinery: The Election Commission of India conducts elections for both Central and state legislatures. It is constituted by the President, with no input from the states, which also lack authority in the removal of its members. In the U.S., federal and state elections are managed separately.
- Veto Over State Bills: Governors can reserve certain state bills for the President’s consideration. The President has the power to withhold assent indefinitely, exercising an absolute veto. This practice does not exist in the U.S. or Australia, where states are autonomous within their legislative domains.
Critical Study of the Indian Federal System
The Indian Constitution, while rooted in federal principles, diverges significantly from traditional federations such as the U.S., Switzerland, and Australia by incorporating several unitary features that shift the balance of power toward the Centre. This unique blend has led constitutional experts to question its federal character.
Perspectives on Indian Federalism
- KC Wheare’s View
KC Wheare famously termed India’s Constitution as “quasi-federal.” He observed, “The Indian Union is a unitary state with subsidiary federal features rather than a federal state with subsidiary unitary features.” - K Santhanam’s View
K Santhanam identified two key factors that contribute to the unitary tilt of the Constitution:- The Centre’s dominance in financial matters and the states’ reliance on Central grants.
- The erstwhile Planning Commission’s significant role in controlling state-level developmental processes.
He concluded, “India has practically functioned as a unitary state, though the Union and the states have formally and legally operated as a federation.”
- Alternative Perspectives
- Paul Appleby characterized India’s system as “extremely federal.”
- Morris Jones referred to it as “bargaining federalism.”
- Ivor Jennings described it as a “federation with a strong centralizing tendency,” noting that the Constitution ensures national unity and growth.
- Alexandrowicz called India “a case sui generis” (unique in character).
- Granville Austin viewed Indian federalism as “cooperative federalism.” He argued that while the Constitution establishes a strong Central government, it does not render state governments weak or subordinate to mere administrative agencies. Instead, it represents a new form of federalism tailored to India’s specific needs.
- Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s Insights
Dr. Ambedkar emphasized the dual polity established by the Constitution, wherein both the Union and the states derive their authority directly from the Constitution. He rejected the idea that states were subordinate to the Centre, stating, “The states are in no way dependent upon the Centre for their legislative or executive authority. The Centre cannot, by its will, alter this division.” He further noted the Constitution’s flexibility, allowing it to operate as both federal and unitary, depending on circumstances.
Supreme Court’s Stance on Federalism
In the Bommai Case (1994), the Supreme Court affirmed the federal nature of the Constitution, describing federalism as a basic feature. It observed:
- States have an independent constitutional existence and are not mere agents or satellites of the Centre.
- The federal structure remains intact despite provisions that allow the Centre to override state powers during emergencies.
- Federalism in India reflects a principle of governance rather than mere administrative convenience.
The Court highlighted that Indian federalism represents a compromise between two conflicting needs:
- The division of powers, ensures state autonomy within their domains.
- The need for national integrity and a strong Central government in exceptional circumstances.
Federal Spirit in Practice
The federal character of India’s political system is reflected in the following trends:
- Territorial Disputes
Example: Disputes between Maharashtra and Karnataka over Belgaum. - Inter-State Water Disputes
Example: The Cauvery River dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. - Emergence of Regional Parties
Regional parties gaining power in states like Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. - Creation of New States
To address regional aspirations, e.g., Mizoram and Jharkhand. - Financial Demands from States
States seeking greater financial grants from the Centre to meet developmental needs. - Assertion of State Autonomy
States resisting Central interference. - Judicial Safeguards
The Supreme Court imposing limitations on the misuse of Article 356 (President’s Rule) by the Centre.
Conclusion
The Indian Constitution is a unique blend of federal and unitary features, designed to address the country’s diversity and complex socio-political challenges. While the Centre wields significant power, the states retain their autonomy and play a vital role in governance. This balance ensures the coexistence of unity and diversity within India’s constitutional framework.
References
- Constituent Assembly Debates, Volume VII, p. 43.
- The American Constitution originally consisted of only 7 Articles, the Australian 128, and the Canadian 147.
- Various amendments since 1951 have deleted about 20 Articles and one Part (VII) while adding approximately 95 Articles, four Parts (IVA, IXA, IXB, and XIVA), and four Schedules (9, 10, 11, and 12).
- A majority of two-thirds of the members of each House present and voting, along with a majority of the total membership of each House.
- Until 2019, the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir enjoyed special status under Article 370 of the Constitution of India.
- K.C. Wheare: Federal Government, 1951, p. 28.
6a. In 2015, the Planning Commission was replaced by the NITI Aayog (National Institution for Transforming India). - K. Santhanam: Union-State Relations in India, 1960, pp. 50–70.
- Paul Appleby: Public Administration in India, 1953, p. 51.
- Morris Jones: The Government and Politics in India, 1960, p. 14.
- Ivor Jennings: Some Characteristics of the Indian Constitution, 1953, p. 1.
- C.H. Alexandrowicz: Constitutional Development in India, 1957, pp. 157–170.
- Granville Austin: The Indian Constitution–Cornerstone of a Nation, Oxford, 1966, pp. 186–188.
- Constituent Assembly Debates, Volume VIII, p. 33.
- Ibid., Volume VII, pp. 33–34.
- Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s speech in the Constituent Assembly on November 25, 1949, as reproduced in The Constitution and the Constituent Assembly; Lok Sabha Secretariat, 1990, p. 176.
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994).
- Subash C. Kashyap: Our Parliament, National Book Trust, 1999 Edition, p. 40.
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994). For details of the judgment, see “President’s Rule” in Chapter 16.