Federalism and the Power Tussle Between Center and State

Introduction

Federalism is a political structure that distributes powers between central authorities and constituent political units. This division of sovereignty empowers various levels of government to function independently within their domains, preventing anarchy between competent jurisdictions. The Indian Constitution embodies this principle through the Seventh Schedule, which provides three legislative lists: Union, State, and Concurrent. Matters not covered in these lists fall under the residuary powers of Parliament (Article 248).

However, this framework often leads to conflicts between the center and the states. These include disputes over jurisdiction, monetary allocation, interpretation of laws, and governance differences. Federal systems worldwide, including India, experience such power struggles as they navigate the tension between national integration and regional autonomy.

Constitutional Ambiguities

Constitutions are broadly classified as unitary or federal. A unitary constitution vests all governmental powers in a single central authority, while a federal constitution divides power between central and regional governments. The Indian Constitution, despite its federal structure, incorporates significant unitary features.

India’s federal nature is marked by dual polity, where both the central and state governments have distinct constitutional identities (Articles 245-255). However, the Constitution also centralizes certain powers, creating a quasi-federal structure. For instance, Article 356 allows the imposition of President’s Rule in states during constitutional breakdowns, highlighting the central government’s overriding authority. It balances federal characteristics like the supremacy of law, separation of powers, and judicial independence with unitary features, ensuring national integrity while accommodating regional diversity.

Power Sharing in the Federal System

Federalism represents a compromise between national unity and state autonomy. It assigns national concerns like defense (Entry 1, Union List), foreign policy (Entry 10, Union List), and economic stability to the central government, while states manage regional matters such as education (Entry 25, Concurrent List), public health (Entry 6, State List), and local infrastructure (Entry 5, State List).

This decentralized power-sharing arrangement is essential for vast countries like India to maintain effective governance at all levels. Unlike unitary systems, where a single administrative body governs, federalism allows for dual governance, ensuring both national cohesion and regional self-governance.

Assessing Constitutional Issues Through Case Law

State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977)

Following the Emergency period, the central government dissolved several Congress-led state assemblies, citing loss of public confidence. The Supreme Court upheld that the President’s satisfaction under Article 356 is subject to judicial review, albeit limited. The Court emphasized the cautious exercise of Article 356 to address clear constitutional breakdowns, reinforcing the dominant yet scrutinized role of the center.

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

This landmark judgment curtailed the arbitrary use of Article 356. The Supreme Court mandated a ‘floor test’ to determine legislative majority and allowed revival of dissolved assemblies if the imposition of President’s Rule was unconstitutional. The decision underscored that Article 356 could only be invoked under exceptional circumstances, safeguarding federal principles against political misuse.

State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1962)

The central government’s Coal Bearing Areas Act, 1957, was challenged for encroaching on state powers. The Supreme Court upheld the Act, emphasizing the doctrine of pith and substance. While land is a state subject under Entry 18 of the State List, the Act’s primary focus on coal mining and development, subjects under Entries 52 and 54 of the Union List, justified its validity. The judgment balanced national interest with state autonomy, setting a precedent for interpreting power distribution.

R.C. Poudyal v. Union of India (1994)

This case assessed the constitutional validity of reservations in the Sikkim Legislative Assembly under Article 371F. The Supreme Court highlighted the Indian Constitution’s unique blend of federal and unitary characteristics, noting the centralizing powers inherent in its framework.

Recent Examples of Power Tussles

1. Agricultural Laws (2020): The central government’s farm laws sparked widespread protests in states like Punjab and Haryana, which argued that agriculture is a state subject (Entry 14, State List).
2. COVID-19 Pandemic: While coordination occurred, conflicts arose over vaccine distribution, lockdown policies, and financial allocations, highlighting gaps in cooperative federalism under the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
3. Fiscal Federalism: Disputes over GST revenue distribution reflect ongoing tensions, with states demanding greater fiscal autonomy under Article 279A, which governs the GST Council.

Conclusion

Federalism is a dynamic framework that seeks to balance national integrity with regional autonomy. India’s quasi-federal structure embodies this balance, combining decentralization with central oversight. While power tussles are inevitable, the dual system ensures the needs of India’s diverse population are addressed while maintaining national unity. The Indian Constitution’s federal form and unitary essence create a robust framework to navigate these challenges, emphasizing cooperative governance for sustained progress.