IS INDIAN CONSTITUTION FEDERAL IN NATURE

INDIAN CONSTITUTION - FEDERAL OR UNITARY

The structures of the constitution are generally federal or unitary. Federal constitution is the one in which there is clear division of power, i.e. power or authority is equally divided among different levels of government. On the other hand, unitary constitution is the one in which power is centralised or in other words, centre is more powerful and have overriding powers over the state government. 

In context of Indian constitution, the word federal is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. This always gives rise to the debate whether Indian constitution is federal or not. 

Federal features of the Indian constitution : 

Division of power : Seventh schedule contains three list, i.e. union list, state list and concurrent list. These lists prescribed certain subjects to be dealt with by centre and state governments respectively. This shows the principle of divisional of power. 

Bicameral legislature : The Indian parliament has 2 houses namely Rajya Sabha and Lok sabha.

 Written Constitution : The India has the lengthiest written constitution in the world in which every provisions is clearly written down and discussed in details. Amending the Constitution is also not so easy task. 

Constitutional supremacy : Federalism found its base in the constitution, therefore it is necessary that the Constitution be supreme. In India Legislative, Executive and Judiciary works within the ambit of constitution. Supremacy of the constitution is also ensured by the way of Judicial review. 

Independence of Judiciary : For ensuring the federal structure an independent judiciary is necessary as to ensure the proper division of powers. In india various provisions are there to protect the tenure of judges and stable working condition as to protect any bias or undue influence. Court can also overturn any legislation or act of Judiciary as far as it is ultra vires to Constitution. 

Non-Federal or Unitary features of the Indian constitution : 

Single constitution : There is no seperate Constitution for the state and the union which is required feature of federation. 

Single citizenship : In federation, citizens have dual citizenship, however in India , citizens have only one citizenship i.e. Indian citizenship or citizenship of the country as whole. 

Rajyasabha does not represent the state equality : Equal representation in the upper house from all the sttes or constituting units is necessary in federation which is very much absent in Indian context. 

Centres control over the state : Article 356 authorizes is the parliament, in the case of President rule in state, to legislate on the matters in the state list for the concerned state. The laws thus made continue to be in force. 

State existence depends upon the centre : Existence of the state depends upon the centre. Article 3 articulates that the parliament can modify or change the boundaries of the state without thier consent. Parliament can also change the names of the entire state or of some provinces. 

Unified Judiciary : India has the the supreme court which is the highest court in the country and all other subordinate courts are under it.

Emergency proclamation : Article 356 talks about the financial emergency, during which all the division of financial resources between centre and state could be suspended by centre and centre can use those resources to meet the situation of emergency. 

IT COULD BE SAID THAT INDIAN CONSTITUTION THOUGH FEDERAL IN NATURE IS UNITARY IN SOUL  

Following points could prove the above statement. 
  • In legislative matters, union parliament is much more powerful. It is not only provided with exclusive powers on union list subjects and residuary subjects but also with dominant position on concurrent list. Parliament can override the state legislation on the grounds of national interest. Governors appointed by centre can withhold their consent to state legislation. Power to reorganize the state also rests with parliament. Constitution can be amended only by the central parliament.
  • In administrative matters, central government has the upper hand. Under Article 356, if the state does not work properly or if the state machinery fails, parliament can impose the emergency over there and can overthrow the state government. Also article 312 provides for the All India services, officers for which were recruited, trained and  appointed by central government but works with the state government. State governments, other than transfer cannot take any other disciplinary action against the officers. 
  • As regards to financial matters, president can alter the distribution of revenue, from incom tax, between the centre and the state. Moreover the comptroller and auditor general of India and finance commission of India, which control the state finances are central agencies. 

Judicial Pronouncements which says Indian Federalism to be overlaid by unitary features or indian constitution to be quasi-federal 

Therefore at last in nutshell it can concluded or said that Indian constitution is neither purely federal nor purely unitary, rather it is quasi-federal in nature.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Kailash Wati V. Ajodhia Parkash case summary

Image
KAILASH WATI Vs. AJODHIA PARKASH PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT  19 NOV 1976 CASE UNDER SECTION 9 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. Question before the court Whether the hindu marriage act sanctify or recognise (what may be called as) week end marriage as of a right at the unilateral desire of the wife. Facts of the case The appellant smt. Kailash Wati was married to the respondent Ajodhia Parkash in June 1964. Both of them before marriage were posted as village level teachers. Wife at her parental village of Bilga and husband at kot Ise Khan. After marriage the wife was transferred to her husband's station and they lived together in the matrimonial home for 8-9 months. Contention of the parties Husband : The allegation of the husband is that the wife has got herself transferred back to her parental village and ever since has been residing there with her parents against his wish. Therefore he filled an application for the restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. 
Read more

Savitri Pandey V. Prem Chandra Pandey summary

Image
SAVITRI PANDEY Vs. PREM CHANDRA PANDEY SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  2002 CASE FOR SECTION 13 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT ON THE GROUNDS OF CRUELTY AND DESERTION Facts of the case :  The appellant - wife approached the court for the dissolution of marriage under section 13 of HMA alleging cruelty and desertion against the husband.  Contention of the parties :  Petitioner : Petitioner plead for the dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion by the husband. Respondent  : Respondent - husband argued that no acts of cruelty were performed to the wife and the petitioner is trying to take advantage of her own wrong.  JUDGEMENT :  The trial court passed the decree in favour of the wife. The court observed that although nothing can establish cruelty against husband, desertion by husband provides sufficient grounds for dissolution of marriage.    High court opined that there was nothing to prove cruelty as against husband and further there was also nothing to prove the desertion by th
Read more

Swaraj Garg V. K. M. Garg summary

Image
SWARAJ GARG  Vs. K.M. GARG DELHI HIGH COURT MARCH 7, 1978 . CASE UNDER SECTION 9 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT Question before the court : Where will be the matrimonial home located after the marriage when both the parties are gainfully employed and there does not exist any agreement either implied or written before the marriage.  Facts of the case : The wife Swaraj - petitioner lived in her village, Sunam, from 1956 and techer at the the school. She was the head mistress at government high school in 1969. She got married to the respondent in 1964. The husband was not having a satisfactory job and earn only 500 p/m in Delhi where he resides. She came to live with her husband for some time and then grt back to her village and continue living there. The Husband therefore filed the petition under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.  Contention of the parties :  Petitioner  : The petitioner argued that respondent's condition is not satisfactory that he can maint
Read more