The Constitution of India is not an end but a means to an end, not mere democracy as a political

project but a socio-juridical process which opens up through a humanist, radical social order, the
opportunity to unfold the full personhood of every citizen. The Indian Federalism is unique in
nature and is tailored according to the specific needs of the country. Federalism is a basic
feature of the Constitution of India in which the Union of India is permanent and indestructible.
Both the Centre and the States are co-operating and coordinating institutions having
independence and ought to exercise their respective powers with mutual adjustment, respect,
understanding and accommodation. Tension and conflict of the interests of the Centre and the
respective units is an integral part of federalism. Prevention as well as amelioration of conflicts is
necessary. Thus, the Indian federalism was devised with a strong Centre. Federalism with a
strong Centre was inevitable as the framers of the Indian Constitution were aware that there
were economic disparities as several areas of India were economically as well as industrially far
behind in comparison to others. The nation was committed to a socio economic revolution not
only to secure the basic needs of the common man and economic unity of the country but also to
bring about a fundamental change in the structure of Indian society in accordance with the
egalitarian principles. With these considerations in mind the Constitution makers devised the
Indian federation with a strong Union.

Federalism Defined
Federalism constitutes a complex governmental mechanism for the governance of a country. It
seeks to draw a balance between the forces working in favour of concentration of power in the
Centre and those urging a dispersal of it in a number of units. A federal Constitution envisages a
demarcation of governmental functions and powers between the Centre and the regions by the
sanction of the Constitution, which is a written document. From this follows two necessary
consequences-
(i) That the invasion by one level of government on the area assigned to the other level of the
government is a breach of the Constitution.
(ii) That any breach of the Constitution is a justifiable issue to be determined by the Courts as
each level of government functions within the area assigned to it by the Constitution.

K.C. Wheare defines federal government as an association of states, which has been formed for
certain common purposes, but in which the member states retain a large measure of their
original independence. A federal government exists when the powers of the government for a
community are divided substantially according to a principle that there is a single independent
authority for the whole area in respect of some matters and there are independent regional
authorities for other matters, each set of authorities being co-ordinate to and subordinate to the
others within its own sphere. The framers of the Indian Constitution attempted to avoid the
difficulties faced by the federal Constitutions of U.S.A, Canada and Australia and incorporate
certain unique features in the working of the Indian Constitution. Thus, our Constitution contains
certain novel provisions suited to the Indian conditions. The doubt which emerges about the
federal nature of the Indian Constitution is the powers of intervention in the affairs of the states
given to the Central Government by the Constitution According to Wheare, in practice the
Constitution of India is quasi-federal in nature and not strictly federal. Sir Ivor Jennings was of the
view that India has a federation with a strong centralizing policy. In the words of D.D.Basu The
Constitution of India is neither purely federal nor unitary, but is a combination of both. It is a union
or a composite of a novel type.

The Indian Constitution is not only regarded as Federal or Unitary in the strict sense of the terms.
It is often defined to be quasi-federal in nature also. Throughout the Constitution, emphasis is
laid on the fact that India is a single united nation. India is described as a Union of States and is
constituted into a sovereign, secular, socialist, democratic republic.

As opposed to this is the opinion of some scholars who regard the Indian Constitution to be
unitary in nature. It has been argued that the Indian Constitution does not satisfy certain essential
tests of federalism, namely- the right of the units to make their own Constitution and provision of
double citizenship. Further, in the three-fold distribution of powers, the most important subjects
have been included in the Union list, which is the longest of the three lists containing 97 items.
Even regarding the Concurrent list, Parliament enjoys an overriding authority over the State
Legislatures. Article 253 empowers the Union Parliament to make laws implementing any treaty,
agreement or convention with another country or any decision made at any international
conference, association, or other body.
Some of the other Constitutional provisions, which are often quoted in favour of the Unitary
status of the Indian Constitution are- emergency powers of the president to declare national
emergency or declaring emergency in a state in the event of failure of Constitutional machinery,
the appointment of governors, unification of judiciary and the dependence of the States on the
Centre for finance. The power of the Union to alter the names and territory of the states, to carry
out Constitutional amendments and to affect co-ordination among the States and settle their
mutual disputes is also regarded as an indicator of the unitary character of the Indian
Constitution.

It should be remembered that the aforementioned provisions in the Constitution are aimed at
establishing a working balance between the requirements of national unity and autonomy of the
States. Dr Ambedkar, one of the architects of the Indian Constitution, rightly prophesied: Our
Constitution would be both unitary as well as federal according to the requirements of time and
circumstances.

Constitutional Intent
Being aware that not withstanding a common cultural heritage, without political unity, the country
would disintegrate under the pressure of fissiparous forces, the Constituent Assembly addressed
itself to the immensely complex task of devising a Union with a strong Centre. In devising the
pattern of the Centre State relations they were influenced by the Constitutions of Canada and
Australia which have a Parliamentary form of government and America which has a Presidential
form of government. The Government of India Act, 1935 was also relied upon with significant
changes. The Constitution cannot be called "federal" or
"unitary" in the ideal sense of the terms.

It is stipulated in the Constitution that India will be a Union of States (Art.1). The Constitution,
thus postulated India as a Union of States and consequently, the existence of federal structure of
governance for this Union of States becomes a basic structure of the Union of India. Dr.
Ambedkar, the principal architect of the Constitution observed-........ the use of the word Union is
deliberate. The Drafting Committee wanted to make it clear that though India was to be a
federation, the federation was not a result of an agreement by the States to join in the federation
and that the federation not being the result of an agreement no state has a right to secede from
it. Though the country and the people may be divided into different states for convenience of
administration the whole country is one integral whole, its people a single people living under a
single imperium derived from a single source.

The Constitution makes a distribution of powers between the Union and the States, the
jurisdiction of each being demarcated by the Union, State and Concurrent lists. In case of a
conflict between the two legislatures over a matter in the Concurrent list the will of the Parliament
prevails. The supremacy of the Constitution- the hallmark of a federation- is an important feature
of the Indian polity. Neither the Central government nor the State Governments can override or
contravene the provisions of the Constitution. Another pre-requisite of a federation, namely, an
independent judiciary - an interpreter and guardian of the Constitution - is also present in the
Indian Federation. The Supreme Court can declare any law passed by the Union Parliament or a
State legislature ultra vires if it contravenes any of the provisions of the Constitution.
Judicial Interpretation
The debate whether India has a 'Federal Constitution' and 'Federal Government' has been
grappling the Apex court in India because of the theoretical label given to the Constitution of
India, namely, federal, quasi-federal, unitary. The first significant case where this issue was
discussed at length by the apex Court was State of West Bengal V. Union of India.

The main issue involved in this case was the exercise of sovereign powers by the Indian states.
The legislative competence of the Parliament to enact a law for compulsory acquisition by the
Union of land and other properties vested in or owned by the state and the sovereign authority of
states as distinct entities was also examined. The apex court held that the Indian Constitution did
not propound a principle of absolute federalism. Though the authority was decentralized this was
mainly due to the arduous task of governing the large territory. The court outlined the
characteristics, which highlight the fact that the Indian Constitution is not a "traditional federal
Constitution". Firstly, there is no separate Constitution for each State as is required in a federal
state. The Constitution is the supreme document, which governs all the states. Secondly, the
Constitution is liable to be altered by the Union Parliament alone and the units of the country i.e.
the States have no power to alter it. Thirdly, the distribution of powers is to facilitate local
governance by the states and national policies to be decided by the Centre. Lastly, as against a
federal Constitution, which contains internal checks and balances, the Indian Constitution
renders supreme power upon the courts to invalidate any action violative of the Constitution. The
Supreme Court further held that both the legislative and executive power of the States are
subject to the respective supreme powers of the Union. Legal sovereignty of the Indian nation is
vested in the people of India. The political sovereignty is distributed between the Union and the
States with greater weight age in favor of the Union. Another reason which militates against the
theory of the supremacy of States is that there is no dual citizenship in India. Thus, the learned
judges concluded that the structure of the Indian Union as provided by the Constitution one is
centralized, with the States occupying a secondary position vis-à-vis the Centre, hence the
Centre possessed the requisite powers to acquire properties belonging to States.

As against this opinion, was the judgment rendered by Justice Subba Rao, the great champion of
State rights. Justice Subba Rao was of the opinion that under the scheme of the Indian
Constitution, sovereign powers are distributed between the Union and the States within their
respective spheres. As the legislative field of the union is much wider than that of the State
legislative assemblies, the laws passed by the Parliament prevail over the State laws in case of
any conflict. In a few cases of legislation where inter-State disputes are involved, sanction of the
President is made mandatory for the validity of those laws. Further, every State has its judiciary
with the State High Court at the apex. This, in the opinion of the learned judge does not affect the
federal principle. He gives the parallel of Australia, where appeals against certain decisions of
the High Courts of the Commonwealth of Australia lie with the Privy Council. Thus the Indian
federation cannot be negated on this account. In financial matters the Union has more resources
at its disposal as compared to the states. Thus, the Union being in charge of the purse strings,
can always, persuade the States to abide by its advice. The powers vested in the union in case
of national emergencies, internal disturbance or external aggression, financial crisis, and failure
of the Constitutional machinery of the State are all extraordinary powers in the nature of safety
valves to protect the country's future. The power granted to the Union to alter the boundaries of
the States is also an extraordinary power to meet future contingencies. In their respective
spheres, both executive and legislative, the States are supreme. The minority view expressed by
Justice Subba Rao has consistency with the federal scheme under the Indian Constitution. The
Indian Constitution accepts the federal concept and distributes the sovereign powers between
the coordinate Constitutional entities, namely, the Union and the States.

The next landmark case where the nature of the Indian Constitution was discussed at length
was State of Rajasthan V. Union of India. The learned judges embarked upon a discussion of
the abstract principles of federalism in the face of the express provisions of the Constitution. It
was stated that even if it is possible to see a federal structure behind the establishment of
separate executive, legislative and judicial organs in the States, it is apparent from the provision
illustrated in Article 356 that the Union Government is entitled to enforce its own views regarding
the administration and granting of power in the States. The extent of federalism of the Indian
Union is largely watered down by the needs of progress, development and making the nation
integrated, politically and economically co-ordinated, and socially and spiritually uplifted. The
Court then proceeded to list out some of the Constitutional provisions which establish the
supremacy of the Parliament over the State legislatures. In conclusion the apex Court held that it
was the 'prerogative' of the Union Parliament to issue directives if they were for the benefit of the
people of the State and were aimed at achieving the objectives set out in the Preamble.

The issue of federalism was carried forward in S.R.Bommai V. Union of India. Four opinions
were rendered, expressing varying views. Justice Ahmadi opined that in order to understand the
true nature of the Indian Constitution, it is essential to comprehend the concept of federalism.
The essence of the federation is the existence of the Union and the States and the distribution of
powers between them. The significant absence of expressions like 'federal' or 'federation' in the
Constitution, the powers of the Parliament under Articles 2 and 3, the extraordinary powers
conferred to meet emergency situations, residuary powers, powers to issue directions to the
States, concept of single citizenship and the system of integrated judiciary create doubts about
the federal nature of the Indian Constitution. Thus, it would be more appropriate to describe the
Constitution of India as quasi- federal or unitary rather than a federal Constitution in the true
nature of the term. As opposed to this, Justice Sawant and Justice Kuldip Singh regarded
democracy and federalism as essential features of the Indian Constitution. The overriding powers
of the Centre in the event of emergency do not destroy the federal character of the Indian
Constitution. The learned judges elaborated upon the scope and justified use of the power
conferred on the president by Article 356 which will not restrict the scope of the independent
powers of the respective States for "......every State is constituent political unit and has to have
an exclusive Executive and Legislature elected and constituted by the same process as the
Union Government."

In the opinion of Justice Ramaswamy, the units of the federation had no roots in the past and
hence the Constitution does not provide mechanisms to uphold the territorial integrity of the
States above the powers of the Parliament. The end sought to be achieved by the Constitution
makers was to place the whole country under the control of a unified Central Government, while
the States were allowed to exercise their sovereign powers within their legislative, executive and
administrative powers. The essence of federalism lies in the distribution of powers between the
Centre and the State. Justice Ramawamy declared the Indian structure as organic federalism,
designed to suit the parliamentary form of Government and the diverse conditions prevailing in
India. Justice Jeevan Reddy and Justice Agarwal opined that the expression federal or federal
form of government has no fixed meaning. The Constitution is also distinct in character, a
federation with a bias in favour of the Centre. But this factor does not reduce the States to mere
appendages of the Centre. Within the sphere allotted to them the states are supreme.

Conclusion
We can henceforth see that the Indian judiciary had interpreted the Constitution to declare India
a unitary nation. This view of the apex court has lately undergone a change. The Court has
recognized the fact that the framers of the Indian Constitution intended to provide a federal
structure with a strong Centre, which would prevent the nation from disintegration.

In a subsequent case Chief Justice P.B.Gajendragadkar, emphasized upon the federal nature of
the Constitution and the Judiciary as the sole interpreter of the Constitution which could not be
changed by the process of ordinary legislation.

In the basic structure thesis case Keshavananda Bharti V. State of Kerala some of the judges in
the full Constitutional Bench expressed federalism as one of the basic features of the Indian
Constitution. In another case Justice Bhagwati, described Indian Constitution as a federal or
quasi- federal Constitution. In Sat Pal V. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court again held that
Ours is a Constitution where there is a combination of federal structure with unitary features.

In Pradeep Jain V. Union of India, the Apex Court expressed a non-traditionalistic yet
pragmatic opinion while explaining the federal concept in the context of the unified legal system
in India- India is not a federal State in the traditional sense of that term. It is not a compact of
sovereign State which have come together to form a federation by ceding undoubtedly federal
features.

In Ganga Ram Moolchandani v. State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court reiterated: Indian

The finer federal facet has often been misinterpreted by the central operators. So the battle for
federal affirmation and restoration of democratic decentralization has gained momentum over the
decade. Important Commissions like Rajamannar and Sarkaria Commission have stressed on
the federal soul of the Constitution. In the opinion of Amal Ray, the Indian Constitution is a
product of two conflicting cultures one representing the national leader's normative concern for
India's unique personality and the other over-emphasizing the concern for national unity,
security, etc. And as a result, the founding fathers opted for a semi-hegemonic federal structure
where the balance is in favour of the Centre. This concept is aptly described in the insight offered
by Dr. Ambedkar: the Indian Constitution would work as a federal system in 'normal times' but in
times of 'emergency' it could be worked as though it were a unitary system. The critics of the
Indian Federal system must not ignore the fact that not only the Federal Government in India has
been made deliberately strong, there is also a centralizing tendency in the other federal states of
the world such as Switzerland, Australia, Canada and the United States.