Context

• The Indian Constitution’s influence extends beyond the conventional perception that only legal experts and scholars engage with it; rather, its impact reaches every citizen involved in democracy.
• By navigating through significant judicial interpretations and emerging global challenges, federalism in India is an evolving structure of cooperation and friction between states and the Centre, underscoring its transformative potential.
• Amid these understandings, it is important to examine the Constitution’s choice of federalism, the political division of power between the Centre and states, and how this choice has shaped India’s legal and social landscape.

An Analysis of India’s Unique Approach to Federalism

• Federalism as a Constitution Choice
  • India’s decision to adopt a federal structure, influenced by the Partition and the secessionist threats at the dawn of independence, is fundamental to the Constitution.
  • Unlike some countries, India avoided explicitly stating federalism in its Constitution; Instead, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar deliberately used union to signify the indestructible unity of the Indian state.
  • Nonetheless, the federal structure is inherent, with independent legislative powers assigned to both the Centre and states, underscoring the states' autonomy within their spheres.
• A Balanced Approach
  • The Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution, which demarcates subjects into three lists, the Union List, State List, and Concurrent List, illustrates a balanced approach.
  • This structure ensures that both the Centre and states can legislate on certain subjects, while fundamental rights are universally safeguarded.
  • The Constitution’s anti-discriminatory provisions are not monopolised by the Centre but are also influenced by state-level legislative actions, revealing an innovative approach to protecting rights and dignity across regions.
• In Contrast to Federalism Elsewhere
  • India’s approach contrasts with historical federalism in the U.S., where states' rights arguments were once invoked to justify discriminatory practices, including slavery.
  • India’s Constitution, by contrast, employs federalism to prevent discrimination, utilising both the Centre and states to uphold equal rights across diverse territories.
  • India’s federal structure, characterised by a political integration that balances self-rule and shared rule, resists oversimplified comparisons with federalism elsewhere, such as in the U.S.
  • Here, states share sovereignty, whereas in India, both the Centre and states operate with overlapping powers under a unified constitutional framework.
  • The federal design is, therefore, adapted to India's diversity, aiming to address social and regional differences while ensuring national integrity.

The Role of Indian Judiciary in the Transformation of Indian Federalism

• The Kesavananda Bharati Case and the Basic Structure Doctrine
  • In the 1973 landmark case Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court established the basic structure doctrine.
  • This holds that certain elements of the Constitution are so fundamental that they cannot be altered, even by a parliamentary majority.
  • Among these elements, federalism was enshrined as an integral and enduring part of the Constitution.
  • This ruling marked a decisive shift, reinforcing the principle that federalism is not merely an administrative arrangement but an essential feature that underpins India's democratic and constitutional identity.
  • By including federalism as a basic feature, the judiciary recognised it as a crucial check on central authority, protecting states' rights and powers within the Union and preventing an erosion of their autonomy.
  • This case, therefore, laid the groundwork for the judiciary's role in safeguarding the federal balance and promoting decentralized governance.
• Centripetal and Centrifugal Eras in Judicial Interpretation
  • The Centripetal Era
    • Before the Supreme Court’s judgment in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), judicial interpretation largely favoured centralising tendencies.
    • This era saw the judiciary upholding constitutional provisions that allowed the Centre significant control over states, especially through emergency powers and residuary legislative authority.
    • For instance, Article 356, which allows the Centre to impose President’s Rule in states in the event of a breakdown of constitutional machinery, was frequently invoked, sometimes with contentious motives.
    • The judiciary often upheld these interventions, consolidating the Centre's authority over state governments.
  • The Centrifugal Era
    • The 1994 S.R. Bommai case marked a pivotal shift, initiating what has been termed the centrifugal era of judicial interpretation.
    • In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that states are not mere appendages of the Centre and that the imposition of President’s Rule cannot be arbitrary or politically motivated.
    • By emphasising that the Centre cannot unilaterally dissolve a state government without judicial scrutiny, Bommai redefined federalism to protect states' rights and independence.
• Judicial Intervention and Interpretation of Cooperative and Asymmetric Federalism
  • The Indian Supreme Court coined the term cooperative federalism in 1977, promoting a model in which the Centre and states collaborate to resolve conflicts and achieve common developmental goals.
  • However, cooperative federalism, while essential, is not an exclusive means of developing federal relations.
  • A 2022 judgment noted that federalism in India also includes dialogues marked by both cooperation and friction, highlighting the need for constructive negotiation between the two levels of government.
  • This flexible interpretation underscores federalism as a dynamic, interactive framework.
  • Another unique aspect of India’s federalism is its asymmetry and the Constitution acknowledges India’s diversity, allowing certain states to maintain distinctive relationships with the Union based on historical, regional, or cultural considerations.
  • Constitutional courts have further refined this model, recognising that states need tailored provisions to protect their distinct identities within a unified national framework.

Federalism, Modern Governance Challenges and Ways Ahead

• In contemporary India, federalism faces new challenges that transcend traditional boundaries, including climate change, artificial intelligence, data privacy, and cybercrimes.
• The Constitution's framers could not have anticipated these globalised concerns, which require unified yet flexible responses.
• These issues compel both the Centre and states to adapt, harmonising their legislative capacities and judicial practices to ensure that federalism supports, rather than hinders, modern governance.
• Marc Galanter described the Indian Constitution as a radical readjustment that replaced old rights with new ones.
• Today, these new rights must include a focus on environmental preservation, technological rights, and data protection.
• Federalism’s success lies in its capacity to uphold core constitutional values, democracy, equality, dignity, and freedom, while simultaneously evolving to address complex modern issues that require cooperation across federal and state boundaries.

Conclusion

• Federalism in India is an embodiment of constitutional resilience and adaptability, evolving from a mechanism of political balance into a framework for tackling current challenges.
• The Indian Constitution has proved capable of transforming federalism to meet the needs of a diverse, complex society.
• Moving forward, Indian federalism must be tested against its ability to foster democracy, equity, and innovation, making it not only a structure of governance but also a vehicle for societal progress.