Context

• In the political life of any nation, there are defining moments when institutions must act as guardians of foundational principles. India faces such a moment today.
• The recent Supreme Court opinion on the 16th Presidential reference concerning the powers of Governors and the President has reshaped the delicate federal compact envisioned by the Constitution.
• This shift risks transforming States into subordinate entities and accelerating the consolidation of power within the Union government, thereby striking at the heart of democratic governance.

Federalism as the Backbone of India’s Constitutional Design

• Federalism forms a core element of India’s constitutional architecture.
• Although often described as quasi-federal, the constitutional scheme clearly distributes powers between the Union and the States, granting full autonomy to States in areas listed under the State List, such as law and order and land.
• The Union was envisioned as first among equals, not a superior political sovereign.
• This constitutional balance is endangered when State legislation can be indefinitely stalled or overridden by Governors and, in turn, by the President.
• When elected legislatures pass laws only to have them delayed, returned, or reserved without clear timelines, democratic will is subordinated to unelected functionaries.
• Such an arrangement undermines the equality of partners within the federation and reduces State autonomy to a mere formality.

The Crisis of Gubernatorial Power

• The controversy centres on the undefined and unchecked powers exercised by Governors in withholding assent to bills.
• Allowing Governors, who are appointed by the Union government and often politically aligned with the ruling party at the Centre, to delay or obstruct legislation distorts democratic norms.
• Without constitutionally mandated timelines, their role effectively becomes that of an unelected veto-holder, capable of stalling laws indefinitely.
• Constitutional values of fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness require that all state action be bounded by clear limits.
• The absence of such limits for Governors contradicts the spirit of these principles.
• Judicial review, another element of the Constitution’s basic structure, demands that all exercises of authority, including those of Governors and the President, be subject to scrutiny.
• Insulating their decisions or delays from judicial oversight erodes accountability and departs from long-standing constitutional doctrine.
• The Court’s endorsement of a limited direction framework risks conferring vast discretionary power on Governors without adequate checks.
• Allowing important State legislation to be kept pending for extended periods creates a de facto pocket veto, leaving States vulnerable to political interference and forcing them into repeated litigation merely to secure constitutional compliance.

A Pattern of Centralisation: Contextualising the Shift

• This dilution of federal principles gains deeper significance when viewed against broader patterns of centralisation in recent years. Multiple actions by the Union government have strained the federal equilibrium.
• First, the refusal to compensate producing States for GST losses undermined their fiscal stability.
• Second, the use of cess collections, whose proceeds the Centre is not obligated to share—has effectively reduced the revenue available for devolution.
• Third, the Centre has failed to fully implement Finance Commission recommendations, weakening predictable fiscal transfers.
• Fourth, centrally sponsored schemes increasingly require States to contribute up to half the funding, placing heavy pressure on already-stressed State finances.
• Fifth, financial allocations have been used as political tools, with selective transfers tied to electoral or partisan considerations.
• Sixth, investigative agencies such as the CBI, ED, and Income Tax Department have been deployed in ways that destabilise Opposition-led State governments.
• Finally, increasing gubernatorial interference in legislative processes completes this pattern of central dominance.
• Together, these actions mark a profound distortion of the federal structure, risking a future in which the Union government wields unrestrained authority while States function as administrative outposts rather than sovereign constitutional units.

Implications of Centralisation: Democracy at Stake

• The conflict between elected representatives and unelected authorities lies at the centre of the crisis.
• Allowing Governors or the President to override, delay, or neutralise the decisions of State Assemblies undermines democratic legitimacy.
• Federalism itself is a democratic safeguard: it disperses power to prevent centralised arbitrariness.
• When this safeguard weakens, the system becomes vulnerable to authoritarian tendencies.

Conclusion

• If the erosion of federalism continues unchecked, the balance of power will tilt decisively toward the Union, placing democracy in jeopardy.
• It is crucial that constitutional institutions correct course and reaffirm the foundational principles that sustain India’s unity and diversity.
• Preserving federalism is essential for preserving India itself.