People who think India is a 'Federation' should also believe that there was no British Empire. There was a federation between India & Britain. Queen Victoria's real name was Vasantha Maharani.
The Supreme Court asserts its absolute right to 'do complete justice' under Article 142. Sadly, it has to rely on the Centre to enforce its judgments. In other words, even if it supports Federalism, it can only make that support meaningful to the extent that the Union is willing to play along.
Dr. Kiruba Munusamy- a Supreme Court advocate & legal scholar- has a good article on the LSE blog which, in a spirit of pure farce, speaks of
The Dynamics of Federalism in the Constitution of India
The Brits had wanted India to be Federal. The Indians decided to have a unitary state though they had to work with what existed and only gradually change the borders of existing administrative entities. There is no 'Federalism' in the Indian Constitution. What doesn't exist can't have a dynamics. True, I could say 'India was created for the purpose of cat worship. The Constitution of India can be viewed as displaying the dynamics of the realisation of cat-worship on a wider & vaster scale.' But telling a stupid lie doesn't make it true even if many Indians think cat-worship is what Dr. Ambedkar dedicated his life to.
The authors of India’s Constitution were clear that it was important to have a ‘strong, united Centre’;
& that India should not be federal- i.e. dual sovereignty was off the table.
yet, federalism is a core part of the dynamic relationship between the Union and States.
Only in the sense that cat-worship is. Did you know that when Mamta sends Modi mangoes, what she is really doing is demanding that a big temple be built for her pussy?
The enduring question of the autonomy of States in India reasserted itself recently with Tamil Nadu resolutely reclaiming its federal rights amid an increasingly centralising Union.
It has no 'federal rights'. It did have a right to approach the Bench, under Article 32, to remedy what it considered an injustice. But everybody has such a right.
It is true that the lawyers for TN urged that the 'basic structure' was federal, but that was not the ratio of the judgment. It was simply the notion that the President (& by extension the Governor) is a ceremonial head. Where assent is withheld there is no 'political thicket' (doctrine of political question) & the matter is justiciable- i.e. the Bench will decide.
It should be said that Bommai (1994) makes Federalism, as conceived by the British 1935 Act, part of the 'basic structure' of the constitution. However, what the Court meant by Federalism was what had obtained at that time- viz. no Federalism whatsoever. The Viceroy could dismiss any Ministry he didn't like. Interestingly, the Bench relied on Bommai to uphold the Centre's actions in J&K. Essentially, the Centre can do what it likes if it says there is a constitutional direction of the Central government which is being disregarded by the state government.
In a landmark judgment delivered in April 2025 in State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025), the Supreme Court of India ruled in favour of Tamil Nadu in a petition filed against the Governor of the State, who had indefinitely withheld assent to several bills passed by the State Legislative Assembly.
It may be that a future Bench will say that the 'basic structure' is Federal. But then there is dual sovereignty which has previously been denied by the judiciary. If so, how can the Centre enforce the Supreme Court's directions? Indeed, on what basis would the Supreme Court be able to override High Court decisions?
Besides reiterating the authority of States to legislate on matters assigned to them under the Constitution of India, as well as the obligations of the Governor therein, the Court also stipulated a reasonable time frame for the President of India and Governors of States to act in accordance with their mandates as outlined in the Constitution.
The judgment refers to the tussle between President Prasad & Prime Minister Nehru over the Hindu Code Bill. The Attorney General advised that the President was like the British monarch & was obliged to accept what had been passed by parliament.
In an exceptionally rare move, the President of India subsequently referred the matter to the Supreme Court (per Article 143), seeking advice on whether such time stipulations could be imposed on the President and Governors in the exercise of their Constitutional functions relating to assent to bills.
In other words, the President was asserting that the Bench had not already settled the question.
While acts like the Governor withholding assent and the Presidential reference are criticised as attempts to bypass Constitutional precepts, there is another question: how does the Constitution of India safeguard State autonomy within its federal structure?
There is no autonomy & no federal structure. What exist are States & Union Territories which have legislatures (unless they are under President's Rule) and which have specific legal rights & obligations.
Article 1 of the Constitution delineates India as a ‘Union of States’, comprising regions that have been organised into States and as Union Territories. While the States have their own elected governments with legislative and administrative powers,
they may do. They may not.
the Union Territories are directly administered by the Central Government. Certain Union Territories like Delhi and Puducherry have been granted legislatures for historical and administrative reasons.
What the Centre gives, the Centre can take away.
Under Article 245 of the Constitution, the Central Government (through the Parliament) may make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India, whereas the State through its Legislative Assemblies may make laws for the whole or any part of the State.
But Union Law takes precedence.
In contrast, the powers of the legislatures in the Union Territories are limited.
As are the powers of State legislatures.
The governance of these regions is thus divided between the Union, State and Concurrent Lists under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
No. Governance is unitary. Specific revenue raising & spending are apportioned to different entities.
In this framework, the Central Government is empowered to decide and legislate on subjects of national importance such as defence, foreign affairs, citizenship, inter-state trade and commerce, and other matters that require uniformity among the States.
No. It can do what it likes. It holds all residuary control rights. Its actions are not subject to any test- e.g. whether it is for the purpose of promoting uniformity. It is true, that anybody at all can approach the Bench & the Bench may be foolish enough to make a judgment which the Executive refuses to implement. At that point, the Bench has to capitulate or else be wholly disintermediated. It is important to remember that even if the Bench blocks a particular way of getting a thing done, there are myriad other methods to achieve the same object.
Conversely, State Governments are vested with autonomy to self-govern and exercise control over subjects of local and regional significance specified in the State List such as police, public health, agriculture, public services, local government, etc allowing for the administration appropriate to the region.
There are 'Autonomous District Councils' in the North East but there is no real autonomy. The Brits had envisaged Provincial Autonomy as the first step to the creation of a Federation. India rejected both provincial autonomy & a federal structure. Still, secessionists may want to pretend such was not the case. But then, cat lovers may want to pretend that there is a Directive Principle re. cat worship.
The Concurrent List, which includes subjects like education, forests, criminal law, and marriage, refers to those matters where both the Union and the States can legislate; in case of a conflict, Union prevails.
So, there is delegation, not dual sovereignty of the American type.
The legislatures of Union Territories can make laws on most subjects in the State List and Concurrent List, especially on routine matters like health, education, and transport. However, the Delhi legislature is constitutionally prohibited from exercising power on critical areas such as public order, police, and land.
How is this relevant? The fact that power of various sorts has been delegated doesn't mean a Federation exists.
While this division of powers
there is delegation from the Union to the States & Territories. However, a Court may find that a particular action of the Union is ultra vires because of some act of omission or commission.
provides a structural foundation for federal governance,
There is no division & no foundation what soever for 'federal governance'. It is a different matter that you can say 'India has some of the features of a Federation' but one can also say 'India looks to me like a cat worshipping country. Mamta's pussy, in particular, is greatly revered.'
the degree of autonomy bestowed upon the States varies according to the historical context and terms of their integration into the Indian Union.
No. They are all in the same boat. None has a 'shred of sovereignty'.
For example, by virtue of the clauses in the Instrument of Accession to India, Jammu and Kashmir was granted a special status under Article 370 of the Constitution (abrogated in 2019).
In 2016, the Bench said it had 'no shred of sovereignty'. There is a long history of such decisions. Why is Dr. Munusamy pretending otherwise? The answer is that a lawyer may lie about the law if that is in the interest of her client. If she is elevated to the Bench, hopefully, she will follow the law of the land.
Per this special Article, Jammu and Kashmir had its own Constitution and retained autonomous powers in all internal matters relating to the State except for foreign affairs, defence and communication.
This didn't stop Nehru jailing Abdullah for 11 years. The fact is the Kashmir Constitution was more draconian- indeed, it permitted the jailing of Abdullah's son & grandson thanks to a law he himself brought in.
Similarly, Nagaland, which became a new State of the Union in 1963, has a special status under Article 371A, based on the 16-Point Agreement between the Government of India and the Naga People’s Convention (NPC) in 1960.
Hilarious! Nagaland was declared as ‘disturbed area’ in 1972 . The 'Armed Force Special Powers Act' was enacted on September 1, 1972 which gave a wide extension of power to the Armed forces of India making them able to shoot or detain any Naga on mere suspicion of insurgency
Accordingly, neither the provisions of the Constitution nor any law passed by Parliament shall apply to or interfere with Naga religious or social practices, customary law and procedures, administration of civil and criminal justice, and the ownership and transfer of land and its resources unless the State Legislative Assembly approves it through a resolution. Similar special status on different subjects has been granted to several other States under Article 371 in Part XXI of the Constitution.
So what. Such laws existed under the British. This didn't mean their Empire was actually a Federation.
The scheme of federal governance and the special provisions with respect to certain States collectively demonstrates that the Constitution of India did not seek to establish a centralised–uniform nation but rather a Union grounded in diversity and pluralism.
No. It demonstrates that India was poor and had to proceed slowly. But it killed secessionists with vim and vigour. There was no fucking Federalism. Instead there was a Dynasty much more autocratic than that of England's.
If so, then why does the Constitution contain unitary features?
It is unitary. It isn't federal though Nehru & Co. had to proceed with a certain amount of guile till the Princely States were integrated & the Muslims & Commies were crushed.
The Indian Federation — as articulated by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee B. R. Ambedkar, and the Constituent Assembly — emerged from European colonisation and was formed through the annexation of British provinces and princely states, albeit not by mutual agreement but by historical necessity.
This is nonsense. There was no annexation. There was a transfer of power. India & Pakistan became Dominions. Both chose a unitary, not a Federal, form of Government. Malaysia is Federal. Burma, India, Sri Lanka etc. aren't federal. They are unitary.
With Pakistan already a separate nation, the framers of the Constitution had even more reasons to establish a stronger Union Government at the Centre. This was to ensure national unity and safeguard against external threats.
Indians didn't want a Federation because sooner or later there would be Civil War.
Speaking of the form of the forthcoming Constitution, Ambedkar, who advocated for ‘a strong united Centre, much stronger than the Centre […] created under the Government of India Act of 1935’, explained in the Constituent Assembly that
… the Draft Constitution can be both unitary as well as federal according to the requirements of time and circumstances. In normal times, it is framed to work as a federal system. But in times of war, it is so designed as to make it work as though it were a unitary system.
Ambedkar was lying through his teeth. He didn't want a Federation for the same reason that Nehru, Patel, Prasad etc. didn't want it. Hindu society needed to be reformed from top to bottom. The more backward areas needed such reform even more than the big cities. Regionalism was associated with feudal customs & practices. Centralization was associated with modernity & progress.
This suggests that the unitary features that positioned the Union at the Centre and granted overriding powers of regional autonomy of the States under Articles 352–60 in Part XVIII of the Constitution were not intended to be expansive but restricted to emergencies.
Only in the sense that it suggests that Ambedkar wanted us all to worship Mamta's pussy. The problem with telling stupid lies is that anybody can tell an even more stupid lie.
The Constitution confers Executive power of the Union and the States upon the President of India and the Governors of each State (appointed by the President) respectively.
No. It vests power- i.e. is unconditional. Conferral may be conditional. Since Governors aren't elected, it is clear there is no federalism in India.
These are authorities responsible for the governance of the Union and the State according to the Constitution, including assenting to bills passed by the Parliament and the Legislative Assembly of the State. When questioned about the Union abusing Emergency powers through the ceremonial heads (President and Governor), Ambedkar remarked that such provisions were expected to ‘remain a dead letter’, never to be brought into effect.
He was lying. So what? It was in a good cause.
Nevertheless, following the adoption of the Constitution in 1950, Article 356 was invoked to impose President’s Rule by dissolving the Legislative Assembly in various States. On one such occasion, S. R. Bommai (former Chief Minister of the dissolved government of Karnataka State), approached the Supreme Court of India, challenging the constitutional basis of the use of Emergency powers. The Supreme Court, deciding whether Article 356 could be invoked only when the State government fails or when it refuses to comply with directions issued by the Union government in `), held that
Article 356 empowers the President of India to exercise the provision only in case of failure of constitutional machinery in the States, i.e. when … a situation has arisen in which the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. The power conferred by Article 356 upon the President is a conditioned power … [which] should be used very sparingly ….
All power is such where a matter is justiciable.
This decision further reinforced the basic structure doctrine established in Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors vs State of Kerala and Anr (1973) which declared that the federal governance guaranteeing autonomy to States constitutes a fundamental feature of the Constitution which the Parliament could not alter, and is therefore indestructible.
This was one reason why judicial autonomy was curbed. For the last three decades the pendulum has swung the other way but this may change.
As evident from Constituent Assembly debates, the indestructibility or the permanency of the federal structure was not merely a judicial interpretation but a conscious inclusion by the makers of the Constitution.
The opposite is the case. Essentially, after the killing of Rajiv, there was a period when politicians agreed to curb the power of the Centre just in case the Dynasty returned to power. Another way to get to the same result is to have simultaneous State and Central elections.
They recognised that a Constitutional foundation was crucial not just for federalism to function effectively but also for the working of democracy in India.
Some Democracies have constitutions. Others don't. Plenty of military dictatorships have Constitutions. The thing has no magic power.
Justifying the inclusion of administrative components in the Constitution, Ambedkar argued that ‘while […] the diffusion of constitutional morality
the Brits have fucked off. We must try to become more like the Brits. Otherwise we will give ear to some Mahacrackpot & our country will turn to shit.
is necessary for the peaceful working of a democratic Constitution […] administration has a close connection with the form of the Constitution. The form of the administration must be appropriate to and in the same sense as the form of the Constitution.’
Ambedkar dismissed his contribution to the Constitution as 'hack work'. Still, he did his bit for the good of the new nation.
Ambedkar further warned that even without formally amending the Constitution, ‘it is […] possible to pervert the Constitution […] by merely changing the form of the administration […] to make it inconsistent and opposed to the spirit of the Constitution.’
Like his colleagues, the fellow could talk the hindlegs off a donkey.
At the same time, Ambedkar was also deeply sceptical of relying on political actors to uphold Constitutional ideals which, he noted in the Constituent Assembly: ‘… constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated [….] Democracy in India is only a top dressing on an Indian soil, which is essentially undemocratic. In these circumstances it is wiser not to trust the Legislature to prescribe forms of administration.’
This was important. What the Constitution is really about is ensuring Civil Servants don't get sacked or lose their pensions no matter how corrupt and incompetent they are.
This foresight of Ambedkar about the potential undermining of Constitutional ideals through administrative manipulation led to the embedding of administrative norms and federal features directly within the text of the Constitution, rather than leaving them to legislative discretion.
No. What was created was 'justiciability'. Sadly, if Courts are ignored the thing is a dead letter. The plain fact is Judges stayed very quiet when extra-judicial killing was done on an industrial scale.
This makes evident that State autonomy within the federal framework was not merely an administrative convenience but a core expression of the Constitution’s foundational ethos.
It simply didn't exist, Bommai notwithstanding. Why did dismissals become more infrequent? The answer was the Anti-Defection Bill on the one hand and, on the other, that the Election Commission, thanks to Seshan, upped its game. There is no point toppling a State Administration if you can't capture booths & get your people elected.
Therefore, on the 75th anniversary of the Constitution of India, it is imperative to reaffirm that State autonomy enshrined in the federal structure is an integral part of the basic structure of Indian constitutional democracy and not a matter of discretion of the Union.
There is no federal structure. Nobody knows what 'basic structure' is. No two benches share the same view. One may say that the Centre has to be more discrete or devious in pulling down an Opposition State. But, suppose the cretin Rahul gets a big majority. He may do any sort of stupid shit. Only the fear of assassination restrains him but he might decide that his mastery of Aikido has made him bullet proof. What of Tamil Nadu? Stalin has revived the secession threat & Rahul has said stupid things 'e.g. India is like EU' (i.e. countries can secede). Udhaynidhi may be a true believer. Why not emulate the Tamil Tigers? They did well for themselves- right?
No comments:
Post a Comment