Meaning:

The word federalism derived from the Latin  word “feodus “which means agreement. Elements of federalism were introduced into modern India by the govt of India act of 1919 .which separated powers between the center and states. The word federation is not mentioned in the Indian constitution .India is a federal system but with more tilt towards a unitary system of government. It is sometimes considered a quasi-federal system as it has features of both a federal and a unitary system. Article 1 of the Indian Constitution states, ‘India, that is Bharat, shall be a union of states’

Federalism is a system of govt in which two sets of governments operate on the same group of people. That means controlled by two levels of govt. The central govt usually oversee the issues of the entire country,other look after the issues of local concern. 

Purpose of the federalism ;

1. Preventing concentration of power in the hand of one tire of govt .
2. Generating strength of the nation through the union .

Federal Features of the Indian Union

The constitution of India has not described India as a federation. However, Article 1 of Indian constitution describes India as a ‘’Union of States.’’ This means India is a union comprising various states which are an integral part of it. Here, the states cannot break away from the union. They do not have the power to secede from the union. In a true federation, the constituting units or the states have the freedom to come out of the union.

India is not a true federal government because it combines features of a federal government and the features of unitary government which can also be called as a quasi-federal government. Political Science classified Constitutions as unitary and federal, from the organizational standpoint, i.e; from the standpoint of distribution of governmental powers. In this context, Dicey observed that “Unitarianism… means the concentration of the strength of the state in the hands of one visible sovereign power…Federalism means the distribution of the force of the state among a number of co-ordinate bodies each originating in and controlled by the Constitution”. Broadly speaking, while in a unitary State, all power is vested in a single Central Government, without imposing any constitutional limitations upon its authority, and the local authorities operate as administrative agencies of the Central government, exercising such powers as the Central government might delegate to the latter. On the other hand, in the federal State, the Constitution divides the powers between the central and regional governments, each deriving its powers from the provisions of written Constitution, so that there is a sphere of autonomy belonging to the territorial organizations called States, which cannot be withdrawn or curtailed at the will of the central organization, called the Federal Government.

Federalism is thus a system of government of a country under which there exist simultaneously a federal or Central Government (legislature and executive) and several State or provincial legislatures and governments as contrasted with a unitary State. Both federal and State governments derive their powers from the federal Constitution, both are supreme in particular spheres and both operate directly on the people; the State governments accordingly are not exercising powers delegated by the federal governments, nor they are subordinate to it (though they may deal with less important matters). The foregoing legal test of federalism, when analysed, leads to the following broad features of a federal Constitution.

1. Written Constitution – A federal state derives its existence from the Constitution, just as a corporation derives its existence from the grant or statute by which it is created. Every power – executive, legislative or judicial- whether it belongs to the federation, or to the component States, is subordinated to and controlled by the Constitution. Therefore, a federal State requires a written Constitution for the obvious reason that in order to be workable and stable and the limitations upon them to be enforceable, must be precisely defined by a written instrument. Thus, even though Australia adopted the system of responsible government (or the Cabinet system) from the unwritten Constitution of the U.K., it had to be embodied in a written Constitution. When a federal polity possesses two constitutions as in the case of U.S.A. and Australia (one for the federation and another relating to the internal structure and administration of each State) and if there is a conflict between the two, then the Federal Constitution shall prevail.

2. Dual Government – The Constitution sets up a dual government – one government having authority over the whole territory of the country or nation which adopts that Constitution (i.e; the Units of the federation) and a Government for each of the regional units of which the federation is composed (i.e; the Units of the federation).

3. No Unilateral Change – The foregoing distribution of powers made by the Constitution cannot be changed or amended at the unilateral will of the parties to the federation, i.e; the Federal Government or the Regional Governments. The Constitution provides a process for changing its provisions, called ‘amendment’. In other words, the Federal nations generally have rigid Constitution.

4. Interpretation By Judiciary – The distribution of powers made by the Constitution must be guarded by the Judiciary, which is to interpret the Constitution as the ‘fundamental law’ of the land and to enforce its provisions against both the Federal and Regional Governments and to invalidate any of their acts which transgresses the limitations imposed upon them by the Constitution. Where the Federating States have separate Constitutions, the problem arises as to how far the Constitutional decisions of the Federal Supreme Court shall be binding upon the States and their Courts. In this context, it was laid down in the case of Marbury vs. Madison[4], that the Federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of constitutional system.

5.Division of powers: It is an essential feature of the federal constitution and division of power is done by the Constitution itself. The Constitution clearly demarcates and defines the power of the Union and the States. Both governments are independent in their rights, powers, and jurisdiction. e.g. In the Indian constitution subjects of national importance like defense, foreign affairs, currency, etc. fall under the domain of the centre while subjects of local importance like land, water, agriculture fall under the domain of the States.

6. Supremacy of the constitution:  The Constitution is the main source of all the powers of the Executive, legislative, and judiciary. All the institutions function under the control of the Constitution, they derived their existence from the constitution. Supremacy is necessary for the smooth working of the federal government according to K.C. where.

7. Bi-cameral legislature: India has bi-cameral legislature – it is one of the essential features of Federalism in India. The Indian Parliament has the lower house (Lok Sabha) and the upper house (Rajya Sabha). Any amendments need the approval of both houses. Few of the states also follow the bi-cameral legislature. Examples of these states are Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Bihar, among others

India

The federal scheme in the Constitution of India is adopted from the Government of India Act, 1935. The said Act made an innovation upon several precedents to make a treble enumeration of powers, in order to make it as exhaustive as possible and also to minimize judicial intervention and litigation. The three legislative lists (I, II and III) respectively enumerated the powers vested in the Federal Legislature, the Provincial Legislature and to both of them concurrently (Section 100). If however, a matter was not covered by any of the three Lists that would be treated as a residuary power of the Federal Parliament (Section 104) and Section 107 provided for predominance of federal law in case of inconsistency with a Provincial Law, in the concurrent sphere Borrowing the pattern of treble enumeration from the Government of India Act, 1935, the Constitution of India makes a three-fold division of powers namely;

a) List I or the Union List – It contains subjects over which the Union shall have exclusive powers of legislation, including 97 items. These include defense, foreign affairs, banking, currency and coinage; union duties and taxes and the like.

b) List II or the State List – It comprises of 66 items or entries over which the State Legislature shall have exclusive power of legislation, such as public order and police, local Government, public health and sanitation, agriculture, forests and fisheries, education, State taxes and duties, and the like.

c) List III or the Concurrent List – It gives concurrent powers to the Union and the State Legislatures over 47 items, such as Criminal Law and procedure, Civil Procedure, marriage, contracts, torts, trusts, welfare of labour, social insurance, economic and social planning.

Thus the framer of the Indian Constitution attempted to exhaust the whole field of legislation as they could comprehend, into numerous items, thus narrowing down the scope for filling up the details by the judicial process of amplifying the given items. Besides, wherever any conflict could be anticipated, the Constitution has given predominance to the Union jurisdiction, so as to give the federal system a strong central bias. Similarly, in all the cases which have come up to the Supreme Court, the Court has upheld the jurisdiction of the Union Parliament. Thus, in case of overlapping, the power of the State Legislature to legislate with respect to matters enumerated in the State List has been made subject to the power of the Union Parliament to legislate in respect of matters enumerated in the Union and Concurrent Lists, and the entries in the State List have to be interpreted accordingly.

Similarly, in the concurrent sphere, in case of repugnancy between a Union and a State law relating to the same subject, the former prevails. If, however, the State law was reserved for the assent of the President and has received such assent, the State law may prevail notwithstanding such repugnancy, but it would still be competent for Parliament to override such State law by subsequent legislation {Article 254(2).

These apart, the vesting of residual power under the Constitution follows the precedent of Canada, for it is given to the Union instead of the States as in USA and Australia. The Constitution of India vests the residuary power i.e; the power to legislate with respect to any matter not enumerated in anyone of the three Lists,- in the Union Legislature (Article 248). However, the final determination as to whether a particular matter falls under the residuary power or not is that of the Courts. Moreover, even apart from the central bias in the normal distribution of powers, there are certain extraordinary provisions in the Indian Constitution which provide for expansion of the federal power in cases of emergency or other predominating national interests, instead of leaving it to the judicial interpretation as in USA, Australia or Canada, as we have noticed. These provisions therefore constitute additional limitations upon the powers of the State Legislatures. These exceptional circumstances are:

1. National Interest – In the national interest, Parliament shall have the power to make laws with respect to any matter included in the state List, for the temporary period, if the Council of States declares by the resolution of 2/3 of its members present and voting, that it is necessary in the national interest that parliament shall have power to legislate over such matters. Each such resolution will give rise a leases of one year to ten law in question. A law made by Parliament, which Parliament would not but for the passing of such resolution have been competent to make, shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, seas to have effect on the expiration of a period of six months after the resolution has ceased to be in force, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before the expiration of the said period (Article 249). The resolution of the council of states may be renewed for a period of one year at a time.

2. Proclamation of emergency – While a proclamation of emergency made by the parliament is in operation, parliament shall have similar power to legislate with respect to State subjects {Articles 250, 353(b)}. A law made by the parliament, which parliament would not but for the issue of such proclamation have been competent to make, shall, to the extent of in competency, cease to have effect on the expiration of a period of six months after the Proclamation has ceased to operate, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before the expiration of the said period (Article 250).

3. By agreement between States – If the Legislatures of two or more States resolve that it shall be lawful for Parliament to make laws with respect to any matters included in the State List relating to those States, Parliament shall have such power as regards such States. It shall also be open to any States to adopt such Union Legislation in relation to itself by a resolution passed in that behalf in the Legislature of the state. In short, this is an extension of the jurisdiction of the union parliament by consent of the State Legislatures (Article 252).[17]

4. To implement Treaties – Parliament shall have the power to legislate with respect to any subject for the purpose of implementing treaties or international agreements and conventions. In others, the normal distribution of powers will not stand in the way of parliament to enact legislation for carrying out its international obligations, even though such legislation may be necessary in relation to a State subject (Article 253)

5. Proclamation of Failure of Constitutional Machinery in the States – When such a proclamation is made by the President, the President may declare that the powers of the Legislature of the State in question shall be exercisable by or under the authority of Parliament {Article 356(1)(b)

Comparison Between U.S.A. & India

On the plain reading of the Constitutions of India and America, it seems that the basic structures of the division of power are same. However, there are some apparent distinctions between the two setups. Firstly, under the Indian Constitution, the powers are relatively more enumerative than the USA. Unlike the latter, the former lays down as many as 211 items into three lists. Secondly, Indian Constitution provides three Lists namely; Union List, State List and Concurrent List whereas; in USA, there is a single enumeration of powers, which signifies that the Constitution simply enumerates the powers specially assigned to the Federal Legislature and leaves the entire unremunerated residue to the State Legislatures. Finally, in India Residuary Powers is given to the Union whereas; in USA, the same is given to the States.

Conclusion

Federalism originated in the experience gathered from political experiments that not merely defence but a number of other subjects, such as control of foreign affairs, inter-state and foreign commerce, export and import and the like, are matter of national interest which require to be dealt with by a national organisation whereas; other matters such as public order, public health, fire, water and electric supply services, which are the concern of the inhabitants of a particular local area and have problems of their own connected with the exigencies of that particular locality, would be best administered if entrusted to the representatives of that area. The basic concept of division of power is same even today in every federal structure. However, the principles of strictly separating the power between the two governments are not an easy task and disputes and differences are always there. The only golden rule seems to be that in case of conflict and doubt as to the appropriate government in relation of any matter is that the benefit should be given to the Central government. However, this rule is not always justifiable especially in the case of taxation simply because the Regional or State governments also need the finance to run the administration. Nevertheless, Federalism is appropriate to large countries like India where government from one center would be complicated and difficult and could readily be out of touch with the needs and desires of widely separated areas and to countries, where particular parts are radical, linguistic and legal or other particularities which they desire to have safeguarded. In short, in spite of some difficulties in interpreting the legislative entries of the federal structure, federalism will stay more importantly because of the globalization of the economy and the desire to achieve the “welfare state”.