Federal system ( Important for APSC)

Federal system ( Important for APSC) Federalism represents a distinctive governance structure characterized by the distribution of powers between a central authority and its constituent units, often states or provinces. This system establishes a framework allowing for dual political setups, featuring governance mechanisms at both the national level and within regional or provincial domains.

Within a federal system, the central government retains certain powers while also delegating specific authorities to the regional or provincial entities. This division of responsibilities allows for a degree of autonomy and decision-making capability at the local level, fostering a balance between overarching national interests and the unique needs and perspectives of individual regions.

Federalism thus embodies a cooperative yet decentralized approach to governance, encouraging collaboration between the central and regional authorities while acknowledging the diversity and distinct identities within the nation. It enables the distribution of responsibilities, resources, and decision-making, often resulting in a more responsive and adaptable government structure capable of addressing varying regional requirements and concerns.

Types of Federal Systems

Within a federal system, distinct centers of power operate autonomously within their designated spheres, contrasting with unitary systems where sovereignty is concentrated at a single level. This division in a federal system allows each center to function independently within specified domains, delineated by constitutional provisions.

Federal systems can be broadly categorized into two types:

• Consolidating Federation:

 This form of federation distributes powers among constituent parts to accommodate the diversity within the larger entity. Typically, the central authority retains more substantial power in this model. Countries such as India, Spain, and Belgium exemplify this type of federalism.

• Confederating Federation:

Here, independent states unite to form a larger entity. States within this framework generally enjoy greater autonomy compared to the consolidating type of federation. Examples of this model include the United States, Australia, and Switzerland.

These distinct models of federalism illustrate varying degrees of centralization and autonomy, showcasing the diversity in the distribution of powers within federal systems across different nations.

Characteristics/features of the Indian Federal System

• Dual Government Structure

Refers to a system where there are two distinct levels of government, typically a central or national government and various regional or local governments. Each level possesses its own set of powers and responsibilities, creating a dual or multiple-tiered governance framework.

• Distribution of Powers Among Different Levels:

In a federal or decentralized system, powers are divided between various levels of government. This division outlines the specific responsibilities, authorities, and jurisdictions of the central government versus regional or local governments, aiming to balance national interests with local needs.

• Rigidity of the Constitution:

 Indicates the level of difficulty in amending or altering the constitution of a country. A rigid constitution is typically more challenging to modify and often requires a specified and elaborate process, ensuring stability and safeguarding core principles from frequent changes.

• Independent Judiciary:

Refers to a judiciary that operates autonomously from other branches of government. An independent judiciary upholds the rule of law, interprets laws impartially, and safeguards constitutional rights without undue influence from political or other external factors.

• Dual Citizenship:

 Grants an individual the status of being a citizen of two countries simultaneously, allowing rights and obligations in both nations. It may offer benefits such as access to social services and the ability to vote in multiple countries.

• Bicameral Legislature:

 Consists of two chambers or houses within a legislative body. This structure often includes a lower house (e.g., House of Representatives) and an upper house (e.g., Senate), each with specific functions, powers, and roles in the lawmaking process. The aim is to provide checks and balances and represent different interests within society.

Federalism in India

India’s governance structure embodies aspects of both federalism and unitary systems, often described as a quasi-federal model. While officially referred to as a union of states in Article 1 of the Indian Constitution, the term ‘federation’ is notably absent from its text.

The roots of federalism in India trace back to the Government of India Act of 1919, which initially outlined the distribution of powers between the central and provincial legislatures, shaping the foundation of modern India’s approach to governance.

Key Federal Features of the Indian Union

•  India’s governance follows a two-tier structure, comprising the central and state levels.
•  Powers are delineated between these tiers via the Union List, State List, and Concurrent List outlined in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
• The constitution holds supreme authority in India, with the judiciary establishing the unalterable nature of its basic structure.
• India boasts an independent and integrated judiciary system, led by the Supreme Court at the apex, followed by state-level high courts and district-level subordinate courts, all subservient to the Supreme Court’s authority.

Unitary Features of the Indian Union

• Constitutional Flexibility:

 India’s constitution blends flexibility and rigidity, allowing for relatively easy amendments in some provisions. However, altering aspects related to federalism can be challenging due to specific amendment procedures requiring different majorities in Parliament.

• Centralized Power:

 The Constitution allocates more powers to the Centre through the Union List. Parliament can override state laws on Concurrent List subjects and legislate on certain State List matters, emphasizing the dominance of the central government.

• Unequal State Representation:

 The Rajya Sabha’s representation is population-based, leading to unequal state representation; this contrasts with the federal principle of equal state representation in an ideal federal system.

• Executive-Legislature Fusion:

In India, the executive at both central and state levels is part of the legislature, deviating from the traditional separation of powers among governmental organs.

• Lok Sabha Supremacy:

The Lok Sabha holds more power than the Rajya Sabha, contradicting the federal principle of balanced legislative power between two houses.

• Emergency Powers and State Autonomy:

 Emergency provisions grant the Centre increased control over states, potentially undermining state autonomy, particularly during emergencies or the imposition of President’s rule (Article 356).

• Unified Judiciary:

 India maintains an integrated judiciary without separate systems for the Centre and states, ensuring a unified legal structure across the nation.

• Single Citizenship:

Indian citizens hold only single citizenship, fostering a sense of national unity despite regional diversity, supporting fundamental rights like freedom of movement across the nation.

• Governor’s Appointment:

Governors in states are appointed by the Centre, making them representatives of the central government in the states, rather than being appointed by the respective state governments.

• Parliament’s Power over States:

 Parliament holds authority to alter state territories, change state names, and create new states, indicating central dominance over these territorial matters.

• All India Services:

 Central services like the IAS, IPS, etc., allow the Centre’s intervention in state executive powers, ensuring administrative uniformity across the nation.

• Integrated Election and Audit Machinery:

 The Election Commission and the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) oversee free and fair elections and audit accounts at both central and state levels, respectively.

• Veto Power over State Bills:

 Governors hold the authority to reserve certain state bills for the president’s consideration, granting the president an absolute veto, impacting the federal balance.

• Control over Key Officials:

 State governments lack authority to remove key officials such as state election commissioners, high court judges, or state public service commission chairpersons, emphasizing central influence in these appointments.

Should India continue with the federal form of government?

• Federalism in India aims to foster cooperation between diverse identities through mechanisms of ‘shared rule’, suitable for a vast and pluralistic nation.
• Center-state relations and state autonomy have emerged as crucial issues within Indian federalism due to the dominant role of the central government.
• The Sarkaria Commission, formed in 1983, was established to review Indian Federalism; however, many of its recommendations remain unimplemented.
• The federal government’s selective adoption of the Commission’s suggestions highlights an imbalance in power dynamics, hindering effective response to socio-economic challenges and national unity.
• The overemphasis on the federal government’s authority within the federal structure limits its capability to address socio-economic issues effectively.
• Restructuring Indian Federalism is deemed essential to promote more effective governance, strengthen center-state relations, and address socio-economic challenges while fostering national unity.

Critical Assessment of Indian Federalism

• During the coalition era, politics took precedence over administrative and financial aspects in Union-state relations in India.
•  States aligned with the central coalition appeared to have fewer conflicts with the Centre, leading to perceptions of preferential treatment and attention.
• Allegations of bias arose against states governed by opposition parties, suggesting a disparity in resource allocation.
•  Analysis of Central plan fund allocations showed no blatant discrimination, prompting a call for a more widespread perception of fairness.
• The National Development Council (NDC) has been urged to be more active and efficient, as recommended by the First Administrative Reforms Commission over forty years ago.
• Despite the recommendation for biannual NDC meetings, this proposal remains unimplemented, emphasizing the need for substantive Centre-state discussions.
• The NDC should transcend routine status and become an active platform for constructive federal discourse, strengthening India’s federal economic structure.

Read more