INTRODUCTION
The Constitution of India is neither purely federal nor purely unitary but is a combination of both. It is a union because it is indestructible, yet it is federal because it is the result of a distribution of powers between the Union and the States.”
– B.R. Ambedkar1
The constitutional character of India is often described as a distinctive and innovative model that defies strict categorization. While it incorporates the essential elements of a federation, such as a division of powers between the Union and the States given in the Seventh Schedule, a written Constitution regarded as the supreme law, and an independent judiciary acting as the guardian of constitutional balance, it simultaneously departs from classical federal structures by conferring extraordinary authority upon the Centre. For instance, the Union Parliament can legislate on State subjects during emergencies2, and even in normal times, mechanisms such as Article 249 and 252 allow the Centre to override or extend its jurisdiction into State domains. This centralizing tendency is not accidental; it was a conscious response to India’s historical circumstances. The trauma of Partition, the challenge of integrating over 500 princely states, the linguistic and cultural diversity of the subcontinent, and the urgency to maintain national unity in a fragile post-independence environment all shaped the decision to design a strong Centre. Thus, when K.C. Wheare labelled the Constitution quasi-federal, 3 and B.R. Ambedkar clarified that “the federation will not be the result of an agreement by the States, nor can the States secede from it,” both pointed to the unique synthesis that lies at the heart of Indian federalism. The Indian model is, therefore, federal in form because it distributes power and authority structurally, but unitary in spirit, as the Centre remains supreme in times of crisis or conflict. This hybrid nature not only reflects the pragmatic vision of the framers but also continues to shape the dynamics of Centre–State relations in contemporary India. This hybrid character of the Indian Constitution has generated a rich body of judicial and scholarly debate. The Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Union of India4 observed that India is not a true federation because the States do not possess indestructible sovereignty, unlike in the United States. Later, in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India,5 the Court clarified that federalism is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, but one that operates with a strong unitary bias. Scholars such as Granville Austin have described the Indian Constitution as one of “cooperative federalism,”6 emphasizing that the Centre and States are meant to function in partnership rather than in isolation. This duality, where the Union is strengthened for national cohesion, yet federal principles are preserved to respect regional autonomy, makes the Indian model a unique constitutional experiment. It reflects not only the framers’ pragmatism but also their foresight in balancing unity with diversity, ensuring that India could remain a single political entity while accommodating its plural social fabric.
CONCEPT OF FEDERALISM
Classical federalism refers to a political system in which power is constitutionally divided between two levels of government, typically a national or federal government and regional or state governments, each operating within its own sphere of authority. This division is clearly demarcated, ensuring that neither level encroaches upon the jurisdiction of the other. At the heart of such a system lies the supremacy of the Constitution, which serves as the binding legal framework governing the relationship between the two levels. To preserve this balance, the Constitution often incorporates a rigid amendment procedure, making it difficult for either level to alter the distribution of powers unilaterally. An independent judiciary acts as the constitutional guardian, interpreting and enforcing these boundaries.7 Additionally, classical federations generally feature a bicameral legislature, where one house represents the people directly, and the other provides equal representation to the constituent states, thereby safeguarding their interests at the national level. Prominent examples of this model include the United States Constitution of 1789 and the Australian Constitution of 1901, where the states enjoy substantial sovereignty, independent powers, and a clear constitutional status that the central government cannot unilaterally diminish.
FEDERAL FEATURES IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION
The Indian Constitution establishes a federal system of governance by dividing powers between the Union and the States, while maintaining the supremacy of the Constitution.8 Though often described as a quasi-federal Constitution due to its strong unitary features, it contains several essential characteristics of a federal polity.9
1. Dual Polity: India has adopted a federal system where there are two levels of government, the Union Government and the State Governments. Article 1 of the Constitution clearly describes India as a “Union of States.” This ensures that power is divided and shared between the central authority and the states, allowing them to function within their respective spheres of governance. Unlike a unitary system where all powers are concentrated in the Centre, India’s dual polity gives states autonomy in matters allotted to them, while the Union holds powers of national importance.
2. Distribution of Powers: The distribution of legislative powers between the Union and States is enshrined in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. It provides three distinct lists: (i) the Union List, originally containing 97 subjects (now 100 after the 42nd Amendment), on which only Parliament can legislate, (ii) the State List, which initially had 66 subjects (now reduced to 61), empowering state legislatures to make laws on matters of local importance, and (iii) the Concurrent List, originally 47 subjects (now 52), where both the Union and the States can legislate, but Union law prevails in case of conflict. This structured division ensures a clear demarcation of authority.
3. Written Constitution: The Indian Constitution is the lengthiest written constitution in the world, with detailed provisions defining the relationship between the Centre and the States. Its written character provides certainty and clarity in the functioning of the federal system. Provisions related to Union–State relations, legislative powers, financial distribution, emergency powers, and inter-state trade are codified, leaving little room for ambiguity. This ensures that the rights and powers of both levels of government are protected by a supreme law of the land.
4. Independent Judiciary: An essential feature of federalism is an impartial and independent judiciary to resolve disputes between the Centre and the States. The Indian Constitution vests this role primarily in the Supreme Court. Article 131 provides the Supreme Court with original jurisdiction in disputes arising between the Union and one or more States, or between two or more States. This mechanism ensures that federal disputes are resolved fairly, preventing any domination by one organ over the other. Thus, the judiciary acts as the guardian of the federal balance.
5. Bicameral Legislature: Another federal feature in India is its bicameral legislature at the Union level. The Indian Parliament consists of two houses, the Lok Sabha (House of the People) and the Rajya Sabha (Council of States). Article 80 provides for the representation of states in the Rajya Sabha, thereby ensuring that the interests of the states are considered in the legislative process. This bicameral structure helps balance the power of the directly elected representatives of the people with the representation of states as constituent units of the federation.
6. Amendment Process: The Constitution of India incorporates a partly rigid and partly flexible procedure of amendment, which is a hallmark of federalism. Article 368 lays down certain provisions, especially those dealing with federal aspects like the distribution of powers, representation of states in Parliament, or the powers of the judiciary, which can only be amended with the consent of at least half of the state legislatures, in addition to a special majority in Parliament. This ensures that the states have a voice in changes that directly affect the federal balance, preserving the spirit of cooperative federalism.
UNITARY FEATURES IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION
Although the Indian Constitution establishes a federal structure, it incorporates strong unitary features to ensure national unity, integrity, and effective governance. These features enable the Union to exercise overriding authority over the States in certain circumstances, justifying the description of India as a quasi-federal State.10
1. Strong Centre: Though India is federal in form, it has a strong unitary bias with the Union Government enjoying dominance over the states. This is particularly evident in the Union List of the Seventh Schedule, which contains subjects of national importance such as defence, foreign affairs, atomic energy, railways, and currency. These subjects are crucial for national unity and security, and only Parliament can legislate upon them. The wide scope of the Union List and the supremacy of Union laws over State laws in case of a conflict highlight the centralising tendency of the Indian Constitution.
2. Single Citizenship: Unlike federations such as the United States, which provide for dual citizenship (national and state), India has adopted a system of single citizenship. Every Indian is simply a citizen of India, regardless of the state or union territory in which they reside. This fosters national unity and integrity by ensuring equality of rights across the country, preventing the development of parochial loyalties to states, and emphasizing the oneness of the Indian nation.
3. Emergency Provisions: One of the strongest unitary features of the Constitution is its elaborate emergency provisions, which allow the Union to assume sweeping powers over the states. Article 352 provides for a National Emergency in case of war, external aggression, or armed rebellion, under which the Union can legislate on state subjects and state governments come under the Centre’s control. Article 356 empowers the President to impose President’s Rule in states on the recommendation of the Governor if there is a breakdown of constitutional machinery. Article 360 provides for a Financial Emergency, under which the Centre can control state finances. These provisions allow India to shift temporarily from a federal to a unitary system in times of crisis.
4. Governor’s Role: The office of the Governor further reflects the unitary bias of the Constitution. Under Article 155, the Governor is appointed by the President, i.e., the Union Government, and not by the people or legislature of the state. Though meant to act as a constitutional head of the state, the Governor enjoys discretionary powers in several matters, such as recommending President’s Rule under Article 356. This often places the Governor in a position where the Centre can indirectly influence state politics and administration, weakening the autonomy of the states.
5. Parliament’s Power Over States: Another striking unitary feature is Parliament’s authority to alter the boundaries, names, or areas of states under Article 3 of the Constitution. Unlike other federations where states have a fixed and inviolable status, in India, the Union Parliament can reorganize states, merge them, or create new ones, and it is not bound to obtain the consent of the concerned state legislature. This highlights the supremacy of the Centre over the states in matters concerning the very existence and identity of states.
6. Residuary Powers: In most federations, residuary powers, i.e., matters not enumerated in any list, are vested in the states. However, in India, Article 248 places residuary powers in the hands of the Union Parliament. This means that if a subject is not mentioned in the Union, State, or Concurrent List, Parliament has exclusive authority to legislate upon it. This further strengthens the Centre’s dominance and ensures that the Union has control over new and emerging areas such as information technology and space research.
7. All-India Services: The presence of All-India Services such as the Indian Administrative Service, Indian Police Service, and Indian Forest Service is another feature that adds a unitary dimension to the Constitution. These services are created under Article 312 and are common to both the Union and the states. Officers of these services are recruited and trained by the Centre but serve in both the Union and state governments. Their dual control ensures that the policies of the Union are effectively implemented in the states, giving the Centre significant administrative influence over state machinery.
THE FEDERAL BALANCE IN INDIA: PERSPECTIVES FROM SCHOLARS AND COURTS
The Indian Constitution embodies a delicate balance between federal and unitary features. Scholars and judges have expressed diverse views reflecting this dual nature. Their sayings can be grouped under two dimensions: federal and unitary features.
1) Sayings in Respect of Federal Features
• Granville Austin observed: The Indian Constitution is first and foremost a social document, and its federal division of powers is directed towards achieving the social revolution promised in the Preamble.”11
• Justice Y.V. Chandrachud in the Kesavananda Bharati case, declared: “Federalism is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and therefore beyond the amending power of Parliament.”12
• Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy, in the S.R. Bommai case, affirmed: “Our Constitution is federal in structure and spirit. Federalism is not a matter of administrative convenience but one of principle.”13
• H.M. Seervai noted: “Despite the strong Centre, the States are not mere appendages of the Union; they are constitutional entities with plenary powers in their own fields.”14
2) Sayings in Respect of Unitary Features
• K.C. Wheare famously described India as “quasi-federal; federal in form but unitary in spirit.”15
• B.R. Ambedkar, in the Constituent Assembly, clarified: “Though India is to be a federation, the federation will not be the result of an agreement by the States; nor can the States secede from it.”16
• M.P. Jain emphasized: “The distribution of powers is weighted heavily in favour of the Union, making the Indian Constitution more unitary than federal.”17
• Justice P.N. Bhagwati, in State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, held: “The Indian Constitution is more unitary than federal. The dominant position of the Centre is clear and unquestionable.”18
These scholarly and judicial perspectives demonstrate that Indian federalism is neither purely federal nor strictly unitary. Instead, it represents a unique model of cooperative federalism, where the Union and the States are constitutionally bound to work in harmony. The balance tilts toward the Centre during emergencies or national concerns, but otherwise, States enjoy autonomy in their designated spheres.
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF INDIAN FEDERALISM
In the case of State of West Bengal v. Union of India,19 the State of West Bengal challenged the constitutional validity of a Central law that allowed the Union to acquire coal-bearing lands within the state. The main argument was that such an acquisition violated the state’s sovereignty. However, the Supreme Court rejected this claim and held that the Indian Constitution is not truly federal like the United States. It ruled that states in India do not enjoy independent sovereignty but derive all their authority and powers from the Constitution itself. Moreover, since the Constitution does not grant states the right to secede, the Union remains indestructible, while states can be reorganized or altered by Parliament. This judgment reinforced the unitary tilt of the Indian federal structure.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala20 this historic case laid down the Basic Structure Doctrine, under which Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is wide but not unlimited. The Court held that certain fundamental features of the Constitution, including federalism, cannot be altered or destroyed through constitutional amendments. Federalism was thus recognized as an essential part of the basic structure, ensuring that the Union–State balance cannot be arbitrarily disturbed. While the earlier West Bengal case emphasized the strong Centre, Kesavananda established that the federal framework is constitutionally safeguarded against excessive centralization.
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India21, this case dealt with the misuse of Article 356, under which the Centre could dismiss a state government and impose President’s Rule. The Supreme Court laid down strict guidelines, ruling that the power under Article 356 is not absolute and is subject to judicial review. The Court emphasized that the imposition of President’s Rule must be based on objective material and that the majority of a state government should be tested on the floor of the legislature, not decided by the Governor or Centre. This judgment significantly strengthened cooperative federalism by preventing the arbitrary dismissal of state governments and preserving the autonomy of states within the Union.
COOPERATIVE VS. COERCIVE FEDERALISM
Cooperative Federalism Cooperative federalism refers to a system in which the Union and the states work together in a spirit of partnership to achieve common national goals. Instead of competing with each other, both levels of government collaborate in policymaking, resource allocation, and governance. A prominent example is the Goods and Services Tax (GST), introduced through the 101st Constitutional Amendment. Article 279A established the GST Council, which includes representatives from both the Union and state governments. The Council decides on tax rates, exemptions, and policy matters jointly, reflecting a model of cooperative federalism where both the Union and the states have a voice. Similarly, institutions like NITI Aayog also embody this principle, focusing on policy cooperation rather than top-down control. Coercive Federalism, on the other hand, refers to situations where the Union imposes its authority on states, often undermining their autonomy. This happens when the Centre legislates or takes action on matters traditionally reserved for the State List or when it uses financial or constitutional mechanisms to exert dominance. A recent example is the farm laws of 2020, which were passed by Parliament despite agriculture being a subject in the State List. The laws faced widespread protests and were later repealed, but they highlighted the Centre’s tendency to override state jurisdiction. Similarly, frequent use of Article 356 to impose President’s Rule in states has been criticized as a reflection of coercive federalism.
CONCLUSION
The Indian Constitution, while federal in its framework, embodies a unitary spirit in practice. The framers consciously opted for a “Union of States” rather than a federation of sovereign units, ensuring that states derive their powers from the Constitution and cannot claim independent sovereignty. As B.R. Ambedkar clarified in the Constituent Assembly, “Though India is to be a federation, the federation will not be the result of an agreement by the States, nor can the States secede from it.” Judicial interpretation has echoed this spirit: in State of West Bengal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the Indian Constitution is not truly federal as the states have no right to secede and are subject to the overriding authority of the Union. Yet, the Constitution also entrenches federalism as a fundamental principle of governance. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala,22 the Court included federalism within the Basic Structure Doctrine, thus placing limits on Parliament’s power to alter the Union–State balance. Later, in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India,23 the Supreme Court curtailed the arbitrary imposition of President’s Rule, reinforcing the principle of cooperative federalism and ensuring that state governments cannot be destabilized for political reasons. Scholars like K.C. Wheare have therefore aptly described the Indian model as “quasi-federal; federal in form but unitary in spirit.”24
Ultimately, the endurance of Indian federalism depends less on textual provisions and more on political culture and constitutional morality. As Granville Austin noted, the Constitution is “first and foremost a social document.”25 aimed at striking a balance between unity and diversity. If the Centre and the states function in a spirit of partnership, as seen in mechanisms like the GST Council (Art. 279A), federalism becomes a tool for inclusive development. Conversely, tendencies of coercive federalism, such as central laws encroaching on state subjects, risk undermining this delicate balance. Thus, the future of Indian federalism lies in respecting the framers’ vision: a strong Union to preserve national integrity, tempered by genuine cooperation to uphold India’s pluralism.
*****
Footnotes
1. B.R. Ambedkar, Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. VII, 4 November 1948 (Official Report, Government of India).
2. Basu, D.D., Introduction to the Constitution of India, 25th ed., LexisNexis, New Delhi.
3. Wheare, K.C., “Federal Government,” Oxford University Press, Oxford.
4. AIR 1963 SC 1241.
5. (1994) 3 SCC 1.
6. Austin, Granville, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
7. Jain, M.P., Indian Constitutional Law, 8th ed., LexisNexis, New Delhi.
8. The Constitution of India, Articles 245–263, Seventh Schedule.
9. Seervai, H.M., Constitutional Law of India, 4th ed., Universal Law Publishing, New Delhi.
10. Seervai, H.M., Constitutional Law of India, 4th ed., Universal Law Publishing, New Delhi.
11. Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation (Oxford University Press, 1966).
12. (1973) 4 SCC 225.
13. (1994) 3 SCC 1.
14. H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, Vol. I (4th edn., Universal Law Publishing Co., 1991).
15. K.C. Wheare, Federal Government (4th edn., Oxford University Press, 1963).
16. B.R. Ambedkar, Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. VII (4 November 1948).
17. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (7th edn., LexisNexis, 2014).
18. (1977) 3 SCC 592.
19. AIR 1963 SC 1241.
20. (1973) 4 SCC 225.
21. (1994) 3 SCC 1.
22. (1973) 4 SCC 225.
23. (1994) 3 SCC 1.
24. Wheare, K.C., “Federal Government,” Oxford University Press, Oxford.
25. Austin, Granville, Working a Democratic Constitution: A History of the Indian Experience, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.