Written by Supriya Kumari & Atulya tripathi students at Chanakya National Law university, Patna.
Introduction
In India, the federalism model was adopted to manage its vast diversity of languages, cultures, and regional identities while still maintaining unity. But what does federalism actually mean in practice? And how does India’s version differ from other countries like the USA?
What is federalism?
Federalism essentially means “distribution of power.” It ensures that one central authority cannot make all of the decisions. Instead, it delegated some powers to smaller units, like states, enabling them to govern themselves in specific areas.
For example, think of a large school with various departments: the principal (Centre) is responsible for discipline and a host of policies, while each department (state) is responsible for its students, teaching and learning, and curricula within established parameters.
Where Did This Idea Come From?
The concept of federalism was shaped by thinkers like John Locke, who believed in limited government to protect individual freedom, and Montesquieu, who stressed the importance of separating powers (like the judiciary, executive, and legislature). These ideas influenced countries like the USA, which became the first modern federal state.
Federalism in the Indian Constitution
The Indian Constitution doesn’t use the word “federation” directly, but it is very clear about what it means. There are three lists in our Constitution that distribute powers between the Union (Centre) and the States: The Union List is for the Centre, the State List is for the states, and the Concurrent List is for joint duties.
However, Indian federalism is not a copy of the American model. It is more centralized because India needed strong unity after Partition and independence. We refer to it as “quasi-federal” for this reason.” This centralization was critical for integrating India’s national integrity and unity with its considerable regional and cultural diversity. In the first three decades after independence, the central government had a significant monopoly on authority and power. The subsequent two or so decades saw a move away from centralization to a more balanced federal structure based on cooperative and competitive federalism. Cooperative federalism emphasized the dialogue between the states and the Centr, while competitive federalism encouraged states to engage in competition to attract investment and enhance development governance through the operation of market forces. Several factors contributed to the rebalancing of federalism, including economic liberalization beginning in 1992, political decentralization due to the introduction of multitiered government, and the growing role and significance of regional parties in state governance stemming from both economic and political decentralization. These factors transformed the power of states, enabled greater autonomy, and allowed states to exercise influence over national decisions as they gained in importance as key players.
Centre-State Relations: The Reality
While the Constitution gives states certain powers, the Centre has many tools to control or intervene in state matters. It can declare President’s Rule if a state government fails. During emergencies (like war or natural disaster), the Centre can make laws on subjects in the state list. The governor, who is appointed by the Centre, can play a role in state politics. This process sometimes leads to conflict. For example, state governments might feel the Centre is interfering too much, especially if they are ruled by opposition parties.
Federalism in the United States
In the US there are two paramount clauses, the supremacy clause and the necessary clause, which predominantly shape its federalism. The Supremacy Clause means that law adopted by the federal government will take priority over any state law created to be in antagonism with the prior. The state law will only be valid if it is in line with federal law. Without the Supremacy Clause, each state could have its interpretation or application of a law, which may lead to contradictory applications of federal laws. There would be a mix-up of laws that could only lead to chaos. The Supremacy Clause allows essential national policies, such as civil rights protections, immigration regulations, and income taxes-to be administered uniformly across the states. A classic example is the marijuana legalization issue. While some states in the U.S. have legalized marijuana for medical or recreational use, it is illegal under federal law. Under the Supremacy Clause, federal law technically trumps state law, although in practice the federal government tends not to strictly enforce this conflict, creating somewhat of a legal void. However, The federal government does have the power to override state legislation. The Supreme Court has confirmed the Supremacy Clause in numerous decisions. For instance, in McCulloch v. Maryland, the Court decided that Maryland could not tax a federal bank or otherwise interfere with the actions of federal employees that were legal.
On the other hand, the required clause lets Congress make laws that aren’t precisely named in the Constitution, as long as those laws are required for carrying out the authorities enumerated. The Constitution, for example, provides Congress the ability to organize and finance armies. But it doesn’t say how. Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, Congress can pass laws related to military recruitment, supply chains, or establishing training facilities because these all fit the necessary part of executing the fundamental power of maintaining a national defense. The Necessary and Proper Clause is a tool for practical governance, not a blank check. Some people worry that this clause gives Congress unlimited power, as if it could pass any law just because it claims it is “necessary and proper.” But that is not how it operates. The clause does not create new powers; it merely provides Congress with the authority to select effective means of carrying out its already authorized constitutional powers. Any government must have the means to carry out its responsibilities. The section simply states that Congress has the authority to carry out its duties in accordance with the Constitution. The Supreme Court said in the same decision, McCulloch v. Maryland, that the federal government can form a national bank even though the Constitution doesn’t say anything about banks. The case established that Congress has implied powers not explicitly mentioned but reasonable and necessary to carrying out its express powers. The central dominance in Indian federalism may resemble the significant powers granted to the federal government by the Supremacy Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Difference between Indian and US federalism
The United States and India are both federal countries, but the nature of their federal systems differs significantly according to structure, operation, and level of centralization.
In the United States, federalism gives substantial autonomy to its individual states. Each state (of which there are 50) operates under its own constitution, written and amended by the “people of that state”. “The people of the state” elect representatives who operate across a range of policy areas, including education, transportation, criminal law, and health services, according to their own historical, social, and economic context. Some states, for example, rely on direct democracy through referendums and initiatives (e.g., California, Massachusetts), while other states follow a more typical representative legislative process.
What makes American federalism different is the “separation of powers” between the “executive” and “legislative” branches. The “House of Representatives” and “the Senate” are two parts of Congress that are separate from the President of the United States. There is a real “separation of powers” between the “executive” and “legislative” branches of the federal government because they have different jobs and are elected separately. This also sets up a “checks and balances” structure so that no one branch may grow too powerful. At the state level, there are likewise separate branches for the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. This is similar to how the federal government works.
The clause of supremacy of the U.S. Constitution provides that when there is a conflict between federal and state law, federal law will prevail over state law. The Tenth Amendment says that the states or the people keep all powers that the federal government doesn’t have. The federal government, on the other hand, has restricted and defined powers. The U.S. Supreme Court has also helped keep the balance by, for example, defending state sovereignty and stopping the federal government from going too far through the doctrine of judicial review.
In contrast, India’s federalism is more centralized and heavily influenced by the historical social context of the country. All states of India, with the exception of Jammu and Kashmir while it had special status (Article 370, now repealed), do not have their own constitution; rather, the states are governed by the single Constitution of India, which is the supreme law of both the Union and the states. The unitary aspects of India’s Constitution mean that it is a more integrated federalism.
In India, the prime minister is an elected member of the legislature (Lok Sabha). It is a theory of a parliamentary system of government based on the principle that the executive is drawn from the legislative branch, which is different from the U.S. system, where the president is independent and is elected separately. The prime minister’s executive power is derived from their electoral support from the majority of the Lok Sabha. This is a clear division of powers, unlike the U.S. separation.
The central government of India possesses significant power. In some cases, it can “override” the states. Article 356, for instance, lets the president declare “President’s Rule” in a state, which puts the “state government” on hold and takes direct authority. This illustrates India’s historical need to remain united and prevent fragmentation in a diverse country with many people and cultures. The Constitution says that the union list, the state list, and the concurrent list are three lists that split legislative authorities. ” The “central government” can establish laws about things on the “Union List” and, in some situations, about those on the “State List.” The “Concurrent List” says that both the centre and the states can establish laws for some matters. However, if there is a dispute between central and state laws, the central laws take precedence.
It is true that India is a federal state, and its federalism is more unitary or centralized relative to the federalism of the United States. That is, centralization is to a significant degree an outcome of the need to respond to diversity, shipping and ensuring internal security, and ensuring that policies are clearly implemented across regions. India’s constitutional development, political culture, and history have led to centralization.
Both the United States and India have federal structures, but they play out differently. The United States prefers a federal structure that promotes strong autonomy of states, clear separation of powers, and checks and balances at the institutional level. India’s federalism provides for regional government, but it grants more power to a central authority and, where possible, integrates the executive and legislature with Parliament, in addition to features that provide the Centre with the ability to act against the states when needed. This indicates the extent to which federalism adapts to the prevailing socio-political context and its constitutional form.