Federalism is a system of government in which powers have been divided between the centre and its constituent parts such as states or provinces. It is an institutional mechanism to accommodate two sets of politics, one at the central or national level and the second at the regional or provincial level.
In a federation system, there are two seats of power that are autonomous in their own spheres. A federal system is different from a unitary system in that sovereignty is constitutionally split between two territorial levels so that each level can act independently of each other in some areas.
There are two kinds of federations:
- Holding Together Federation – In this type, powers are shared between various constituent parts to accommodate the diversity in the whole entity. Here, powers are generally tilted towards the central authority. Example: India, Spain, Belgium.
- Coming Together Federation – In this type, independent states come together to form a larger unit. Here, states enjoy more autonomy as compared to the holding together kind of federation. Example: USA, Australia, Switzerland.
India is a federal system but with more tilt towards a unitary system of government. It is sometimes considered a quasi-federal system as it has features of both a federal and a unitary system. Article 1 of the Indian Constitution states, ‘India, that is Bharat, shall be a union of states’. The word federation is not mentioned in the constitution. Elements of federalism were introduced into modern India by the Govt. of India Act 1919 which separated powers between the Centre and the provincial legislatures.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar said that the committee used the term, Union instead of Federation. The drafting committee wanted to make it clear that though India was to be Federation, the Federation was not the result of an agreement by the states to join in a Federation and that the federation was not being the result of an agreement, no states has the right to secede from it. The Federation is union, because it is indestructible.
Further, in Indian federation besides central govt. and state govt., a third level of govt.,i.e., Panchayat and Municipalities were created through 73 and 74 constitution amendment. This is a novel form of federation, unknown to the outside world. So, Indian Federation is sui generis system.
Indian Federation:
- UNION
- STATE
- LOCAL
Federal Features of the Indian Union
- Governments at two levels/ Duality of Govt. – centre and states. later, a third tier govt. has been formed by the constitutional amendment, i.e., rural and urban governments.
- Division of powers between the centre and states – there are three lists given in the 7TH SCHEDULE OF CONSTITUTION which gives the subjects each level has jurisdiction in:
- Union List comprises of 97 subjects of national importance and union parliament alone has the power to enact laws with respect to these subjects.
- State List comprises of 66 subjects of local importance and state legislatures have the power to enact laws with respect to these subjects.
- Concurrent List comprises of 47 subjects and both the parliament and state legislatures can legislate on them.
However, in case of clash between central and state laws, central law will prevail.
- Supremacy of the constitution – the basic structure of constitution is indestructible as laid out by the judiciary. The constitution is the supreme law in India.
- Independent judiciary – the constitution provides for an independent and integrated judiciary. The lower and district courts are at the bottom levels, the high courts are at the state levels and at the topmost position is the Supreme Court. All courts are subordinate to the Supreme Court.
- Written and Rigid Constitution — Indian constitution is written and rigid as far as amendment of federal provisions is concerned.
RELEVANT CASE LAWS
State of West Bengal v. Union of India AIR 1963 SC 1241
Facts: A suit was filed by the State of West Bengal against the Union of India which contended that the Parliament is not competent to make a law authorizing the Union to acquire land and right in/over the land, which are vested in a State. The suit challenged the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, enacted by the Parliament and that specifically Sections 4 and 7 of the said Act were ultra vires; thereby challenging the legislative competence of Parliament. The suit also asked for an injunction in order to restrain the Union Government from proceeding under the provisions of the Act with regard to the coal-bearing lands which are vested in the State of West Bengal. The Supreme Court issued notices to all the Advocates-General of the States of India. The States appeared through their respective Advocates-General or through other Counsel. The States included Assam, Bihar, Gujrat, Madras, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. Due to a pending matter between it as one of the defendants, the National Coal Development Corporation Limited also intervened.
Issue: Whether the Parliament is competent to enact a law which provides for compulsory acquisition by the Union Government of land and other properties which are vested in/owned by a State?
Whether the Act or any of its provisions are ultra vires of the legislative competence of the Parliament?
Judgement: The Court confirmed that the Parliament does have legislative competence to enact a Statute for compulsory acquisition of land and other properties by the Union Government which are vested in/owned by a State.
Though the State of West Bengal is a sovereign authority, but it does not disentitle the Parliament under Entry 42, List III of the Constitution to exercise its legislative powers.
The impugned act – Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 is not ultra vires the legislative competence of Parliament and that it applies to lands which are vested in/owned by the State, on its true construction.
The suit was dismissed with costs and the Plaintiff State was not entitled to any relief.
Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab(1955) 2 SCR 225
Facts: Ram Jawaya vs State of Punjab is one such case that reshaped our understanding of executive power within the Indian democracy. The State of Punjab, aiming to monopolize the educational publishing sector, issued an executive order that threatened the livelihoods of private publishers. Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur, a private publisher, challenged this move, arguing that it violated fundamental rights and exceeded the government’s executive authority. The conflict highlighted the urgent need to define the boundaries of executive power within a parliamentary democracy.
Issue: whether the executive branch could undertake commercial activities without an explicit legislative mandate, relying solely on its executive power?
Judgement: The court emphasized that the Indian Constitution is a written document, ensuring that even the legislature cannot override the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens. The business in question, carried out by the petitioners, involved printing and publishing books, including textbooks for schools in Punjab. The petitioners had no right to demand that their books be accepted as textbooks by the government. The publishers retained their right to print and publish books and sell them, but they had no right to compel the government to approve their books as textbooks. This distinction was crucial in determining that the government’s actions did not infringe upon any fundamental rights. The court also noted that the executive government of a state has the constitutional power to carry on trade or business, subject to legislative control. If the trade or business involves the expenditure of public funds, parliamentary authorization is necessary, either directly or through statutory provisions. In cases where the government needs to encroach upon private rights to conduct its business, specific legislation would be required to sanction such actions. However, in this case, the petitioners did not have any fundamental rights infringed upon by the government’s actions.
The Supreme Court held that the business of printing and publishing textbooks was within the competence of the executive government without needing specific legislation. The petitioners did not possess a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, making the question of government monopoly under Article 19(6) irrelevant. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition with costs.
