India: a quasi-federal republic
“The constitution of India is neither purely federal nor purely unitary but is a combination of both. It is a union or composite state of novel type”
DD Basu
Federal and unitary are two extremes between which the pendulum of governmental structure swings. Likewise is the swing of the Indian constitutional system. There is a great controversy among the writers of Indian constitution as regard to its nature. Some call it federal where as others regard it as quasi-federal or unitary with subsidiary federal features. As a matter of fact this controversy has developed because the Indian constitution has sought to blend the American federal system with the British parliamentary system in light of peculiar conditions prevailing in India. An analysis of our federal system reveals that it is more a Canadian type federation where Centre has been kept stronger than units. The result has been that our constitution has evoked a controversy as to whether it is federal or unitary. As regards the federal structure of the Indian state, our constitution does not explicitly use the term ‘federation’. Instead Article 1 declares India i.e. Bharat, shall be a ‘union of states’. However, this does not make India a unitary state. The original design of the Indian federal system had all the basic features of a federal setup, and the Indian ‘union of states’ still retains the key elements of the original design, though the centre has become more dominant than before. India’s federal features include- (a) A written constitution, (b) distribution of powers and (c) a supreme court with powers to interpret the constitution.
Thus though the word ‘federation’ is nowhere used in the constitution yet the constitution has all the make of a federation, but there are certain features in the constitution, which has led the critics to deny its federal structure. Single citizenship, emergency provision, unequal representation of the states in the Rajya Sabha. Article 3 of the constitution authorizes the Indian parliament to create new states under Article 249,353,356,155,156,253,248 and 324 are wide enough to enable the centre to exercise a controlling influence over the states, are feature unlike that of a true federation. On account of these features the constitution has been called a ‘quasi-federal’.
However, some reasons of unionised federation can be put forward such as-(a) as a check against disintegration (b) to secure equitable economic and political development (c) a safeguard against future contingencies.
Thus, it can be concluded that India has both federal and unitary characteristics so India can be rightly called a quasi-federal republic with a strong centre to meet baffling eventualities.
An essay by Deepmanjuri Das
“The constitution of India is neither purely federal nor purely unitary but is a combination of both. It is a union or composite state of novel type”
DD Basu
Federal and unitary are two extremes between which the pendulum of governmental structure swings. Likewise is the swing of the Indian constitutional system. There is a great controversy among the writers of Indian constitution as regard to its nature. Some call it federal where as others regard it as quasi-federal or unitary with subsidiary federal features. As a matter of fact this controversy has developed because the Indian constitution has sought to blend the American federal system with the British parliamentary system in light of peculiar conditions prevailing in India. An analysis of our federal system reveals that it is more a Canadian type federation where Centre has been kept stronger than units. The result has been that our constitution has evoked a controversy as to whether it is federal or unitary. As regards the federal structure of the Indian state, our constitution does not explicitly use the term ‘federation’. Instead Article 1 declares India i.e. Bharat, shall be a ‘union of states’. However, this does not make India a unitary state. The original design of the Indian federal system had all the basic features of a federal setup, and the Indian ‘union of states’ still retains the key elements of the original design, though the centre has become more dominant than before. India’s federal features include- (a) A written constitution, (b) distribution of powers and (c) a supreme court with powers to interpret the constitution.
Thus though the word ‘federation’ is nowhere used in the constitution yet the constitution has all the make of a federation, but there are certain features in the constitution, which has led the critics to deny its federal structure. Single citizenship, emergency provision, unequal representation of the states in the Rajya Sabha. Article 3 of the constitution authorizes the Indian parliament to create new states under Article 249,353,356,155,156,253,248 and 324 are wide enough to enable the centre to exercise a controlling influence over the states, are feature unlike that of a true federation. On account of these features the constitution has been called a ‘quasi-federal’.
However, some reasons of unionised federation can be put forward such as-(a) as a check against disintegration (b) to secure equitable economic and political development (c) a safeguard against future contingencies.
Thus, it can be concluded that India has both federal and unitary characteristics so India can be rightly called a quasi-federal republic with a strong centre to meet baffling eventualities.
An essay by Deepmanjuri Das
Hello. This post is likeable, and your blog is very interesting, congratulations :-). I will add in my blogroll =). If possible gives a last there on my blog, it is about the TV Digital, I hope you enjoy. The address is http://tv-digital-brasil.blogspot.com. A hug.
ReplyDelete