PRUDENCIA

AIPPM STUDY GUIDE

AGENDA
Evaluating federalism in India and
restructuring the balance of power
between the Centre and States.
LETTER FROM THE EXECUTIVE BOARD

Dear Members,
On behalf of the Executive Board, we extend a warm welcome to
all of you and congratulate you on being a part of the All-India
Political Parties Meet (AIPPM) at Prudencia MUN, 2025.
We are pretty sure that this Study guide will give you a perfect
launching pad as it encompasses a plethora of information that we
believe will help you kickstart your research. This being clear, kindly
do not limit your research to the areas highlighted, but ensure that
you logically deduce and push your research to areas associated
with the issues mentioned. The Executive Board wants to make it
clear that we are not looking for a repetition of existing solutions but
adaptations and undeployed solutions presented in a practical
manner are fair play. Your goal should not be to recite your
research and existing solutions but to put your minds to use for
developing your own analysis of subject matters and bring forth
novel solutions if possible.
We look forward to engaging with your diverse perspectives and
contributing to the efforts of the AIPPM during this simulation at
Prudencia MUN, 2025. All the best!

Best regards,

Sanket Gaikwad
(Chairperson, Prudencia MUN, 2025.)
Sidharth Mohanty
(Vice-Chairperson, Prudencia MUN, 2025.)
Abhijith NC
 Introduction to the Committee
The All-India Political Parties Meet (AIPPM) is an informal but crucial
platform where representatives of various political parties come
together to discuss pressing national issues. Unlike the structured
parliamentary proceedings, AIPPM fosters open-ended discussions,
negotiations, and consensus-building among political leaders, often
preceding key legislative decisions or constitutional amendments. The
committee includes members from both national and regional
parties, ensuring diverse representation of political ideologies and
interests. Though it does not have legislative authority, AIPPM
significantly influences government policies and national governance
strategies by providing a space for political discourse and cooperative
decision-making.
It is a unique platform that brings together representatives from various
national and regional political parties to deliberate on critical national
issues. Unlike parliamentary debates, which follow a structured format
with procedural rules, AIPPM functions as an informal yet influential
forum where political leaders engage in open discussions. These
discussions allow leaders to express their party’s stance on key issues,
negotiate positions, and attempt to build consensus before policies
are formulated or implemented. While AIPPM does not have any
legislative or executive authority, its significance lies in its ability to
shape political discourse, influence decision-making, and act as a
preparatory ground for major legislative and policy changes. The
views exchanged in these meetings often guide parliamentary
debates and government policies, making AIPPM a vital mechanism
for political dialogue in India’s democracy.
IPPM plays a crucial role in addressing a wide range of issues,
including:

•Constitutional amendments: Deliberations on changes to the

Constitution, particularly those affecting governance structures,
federalism, and fundamental rights.
•Centre-State relations and federalism: Discussions on issues such as
financial devolution, legislative autonomy, and the role of Governors in
state administration.

•Economic policies and fiscal federalism: Debates on budget

allocations, Goods and Services Tax (GST) distribution, and economic
reforms that impact states differently.

•Internal security and law enforcement: Addressing national security

concerns, anti-terrorism policies, and law enforcement strategies that
require cooperation between the Centre and states.

•Electoral and democratic reforms: Proposals related to electoral

funding, transparency in political parties, and reforms in voting
processes.

•Social and political issues: Discussions on policies affecting education,

healthcare, reservations, minority rights, and governance reforms.

The committee serves as a bridge between national and regional

interests, allowing both dominant and emerging political parties to put
forward their perspectives on policy matters. AIPPM plays a vital role in
strengthening cooperative federalism, ensuring that governance
remains inclusive and that state concerns are adequately addressed
in national policymaking. By bringing together political leaders from
across the country, AIPPM helps foster negotiation and conflict
resolution, making it an essential institution for maintaining a balanced
power structure between the Centre and the States. Thus, while AIPPM
may not have direct authority, its influence in shaping political
consensus and governance strategies is undeniable. It ensures that
India’s democracy remains dynamic, responsive, and representative
of its diverse political landscape.
 overview
India’s federal structure is unique, balancing elements of both
centralization and decentralization. The Constitution of India
establishes a division of powers between the Centre and the States
through the Union List, State List, and Concurrent List. While the
intention was to ensure cooperation between both levels of
government, over time, several challenges have emerged, leading to
tensions in Centre-State relations. These tensions arise due to issues
such as legislative overreach, financial dependency, administrative
control, and political dynamics that impact governance. As India
evolves, the need for restructuring power dynamics to ensure a more
balanced and cooperative federal system has become increasingly
important.
Historically, Indian federalism has been shaped by various
constitutional provisions and political developments. The Government
of India Act, 1935 laid the foundation for a federal structure, but post-
independence, the framers of the Constitution favored a strong
Centre to maintain national unity. Over the years, events such as the
Emergency of 1975-77, economic liberalization in 1991, and the rise of
coalition politics have influenced the Centre-State equation. While
federalism has allowed states some autonomy, concerns over
centralization have persisted, particularly regarding the role of the
Governor, financial devolution, and the powers of central
investigative agencies.
One of the key areas of conflict in Indian federalism is legislative and
administrative control. The role of the Governor, who is appointed by
the Centre, has often been questioned as an agent of the Union
government rather than an impartial constitutional authority.
Additionally, Article 356 (President’s Rule) has been criticized for being
used politically to dismiss state governments. Another contentious issue
is the growing influence of central agencies such as the CBI and ED in
state matters, which many states see as an encroachment on their
jurisdiction. Furthermore, institutions like NITI Aayog, which replaced
the Planning Commission, lack financial devolution powers, limiting
their role in promoting true cooperative federalism.
Financial federalism is another significant challenge. While the
Finance Commission determines the devolution of central taxes,
many states argue that they should receive a greater share to ensure
equitable development. The introduction of GST was aimed at
creating a uniform taxation system, but it has also reduced states’
independent taxation powers, making them financially dependent on
the Centre for compensation. Additionally, disparities in fund
allocation have led to concerns, particularly among southern states,
which contribute more
revenue but receive lower central funds in return. This raises questions
about the fairness of financial redistribution and whether reforms are
needed to ensure a more balanced fiscal relationship.
Political and electoral challenges also impact Centre-State relations.
The proposal for "One Nation, One Election" has been met with
resistance from regional parties, which fear it could weaken their
influence. Similarly, the dominance of national parties, particularly the
BJP, in state politics has led to growing tensions between regional
leaders and the Centre. The shift from coalition politics to a more
majoritarian rule at the Centre has further complicated power-sharing
dynamics. Electoral reforms, such as revisiting the anti-defection law
and enhancing the role of Rajya Sabha representation for states,
could play a key role in strengthening federalism.
Security and law enforcement have also been areas of contention.
While national security is largely a Central subject, states argue that
their law enforcement agencies should have greater autonomy. The
Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) and other security
legislations have been sources of debate, particularly in states like
Jammu & Kashmir and the Northeast, where they impact governance
and civil liberties. The deployment of central paramilitary forces in
states without state government approval is another issue that raises
concerns about the Centre encroaching on state authority.
Given these challenges, several reforms can be considered to
strengthen federalism in India. One of the most important measures
would be redefining the role of the Governor to ensure impartiality
and prevent political interference. Amending Article 356 to include
stricter guidelines for imposing President’s Rule could also help prevent
its misuse. Revisiting the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution to grant
states greater autonomy over taxation and administrative powers
could further decentralize governance. Financial reforms, such as
increasing the share of tax devolution to states, strengthening the GST
Council’s decision-making powers, and introducing special economic
packages for states in need, could address fiscal concerns.
Additionally, strengthening the Inter-State Council and creating a
more structured mechanism for dispute resolution between the
Centre and States could enhance cooperative federalism.
Ultimately, restructuring federalism in India requires a delicate
balance between unity and regional autonomy. Strengthening
institutional frameworks, ensuring fair fiscal distribution, and fostering a
more inclusive decision-making process are essential to creating a
governance model that respects the diverse needs of the states while
maintaining national integrity.
 Federalism in India
India’s federal structure is a unique blend of unitary and federal
features, often described as “quasi-federal” due to the strong central
authority. The framers of the Constitution designed this system to
balance national unity with regional autonomy, ensuring both stability
and flexibility. Unlike classical federations, where power is strictly
divided between different levels of government, India's system allows
for a strong Centre with certain state-level autonomy. This ensures that
while states can manage their own affairs in designated areas, the
Centre retains the authority to intervene in matters of national
importance.

1.Constitutional Basis of Federalism

The Indian Constitution lays the foundation for federalism through the
Seventh Schedule, which classifies legislative powers into three lists: the
Union List, State List, and Concurrent List.

•The Union List consists of subjects of national importance such as

defence, foreign affairs, and atomic energy, where only Parliament
can legislate.

•The State List includes matters like police, public health, and
agriculture, where states have exclusive legislative power.

•The Concurrent List contains subjects like education, criminal law,

and environment, where both the Centre and states can legislate, but
in case of a conflict, the Central law prevails. Additionally, residuary
powers, which refer to subjects not mentioned in any list, rest with the
Centre, further strengthening its authority.

While India follows a single Constitution that applies to both the

Centre and states, exceptions have been made for certain regions,
such as the special provisions for northeastern states under Article 371.
Historically, Jammu and Kashmir had its own Constitution under Article
370, which was revoked in 2019, integrating the state more closely
with the Indian Union.
The Supreme Court acts as the final interpreter of the Constitution,
ensuring the resolution of disputes between the Centre and states.
Additionally, the President has the power to intervene in state matters
through the appointment of Governors, who act as representatives of
the Union Government.

2. Nature of Indian Federalism

Indian federalism is often described as asymmetrical, meaning that
not all states have equal powers. Some states, particularly those in the
northeast, have special privileges due to historical and geographical
reasons. This ensures regional stability but also leads to complexities in
governance. Another unique aspect is cooperative federalism, where
the Centre and states work together on shared goals. Institutions such
as NITI Aayog and the GST Council promote collaboration in
economic and policy matters. However, there is also an element of
competitive federalism, where states compete for resources,
investment, and rankings in governance efficiency, thereby
encouraging better policy implementation.

3. Financial Federalism
Financial devolution is a key aspect of federalism in India. While states
have control over certain taxes and revenues, a significant portion of
financial resources is collected by the Centre and redistributed to
states based on Finance Commission recommendations. The
introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) has further
centralised taxation, making states reliant on the Centre for their share
of revenue. While this has simplified the tax structure, it has also led to
concerns about financial autonomy for states.

4.Federalism and Emergency Provisions

A crucial aspect of Indian federalism is its transformation during
emergencies. Under Article 352 (National Emergency), Article 356
(President’s Rule), and Article 360 (Financial Emergency), the Centre
can assume greater control over states, temporarily shifting the system
into a unitary mode.
Historically, Article 356 has been invoked multiple times to dismiss
elected state governments, often leading to debates over its misuse.
While necessary for maintaining national stability in extreme situations,
these provisions have also raised concerns about undermining state
autonomy.

5.The Way Forward

To strengthen Indian federalism, there is a need to promote greater
financial independence for states, allowing them to generate
revenue without excessive dependence on the Centre. Strengthening
institutions like the Inter-State Council can improve dialogue between
different levels of government, ensuring that federalism remains a
cooperative rather than a conflict-driven process. Additionally, judicial
clarity on Centre-State relations can help prevent constitutional
ambiguities from leading to political disputes. Indian federalism
remains a dynamic and evolving system, balancing national integrity
with regional autonomy. While the Constitution provides a strong
framework, continuous reforms are necessary to ensure that the
federal structure adapts to contemporary challenges while
maintaining its core democratic principles.

Judicial Interpretation
The judiciary plays a crucial role in defining the contours of Indian
federalism, ensuring that neither the Centre nor the states exceed
their constitutional powers. Through various landmark judgments, the
Supreme Court and High Courts have interpreted the Constitution to
maintain the balance between central authority and state autonomy,
often acting as the guardian of federal principles. Judicial intervention
has been particularly significant in cases involving legislative
competence, emergency provisions, financial distribution, and the
misuse of constitutional powers by the Centre or states. Under Article
131, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in Centre-State
disputes, allowing it to resolve conflicts that arise due to overlapping
powers or constitutional misinterpretations. Over the years, the
judiciary has established precedents that reinforce the federal
structure of India while ensuring that the unitary tilt does not erode
state autonomy.
The Supreme Court has played an instrumental role in shaping the
federal structure of India through various judgments. State of West
Bengal v. Union of India (1963) upheld Parliament’s supremacy in
legislative matters and ruled that states do not have sovereignty like
the Union. It reinforced the unitary nature of Indian federalism.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) introduced the Basic
Structure Doctrine, ensuring that the federal structure is an essential
feature of the Constitution and cannot be altered by Parliament. S.R.
Bommai v. Union of India (1994) defining case for federalism, limiting
the misuse of Article 356 (President’s Rule). The Court ruled that state
governments cannot be arbitrarily dismissed by the Centre, and such
decisions are subject to judicial review. Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India
(2006) The Supreme Court upheld that federalism in India is not rigid
but has unitary features, particularly in legislative matters like Rajya
Sabha elections, which can be altered by Parliament. Government of
NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2018), The Court ruled that the
Lieutenant Governor of Delhi cannot act independently and must
follow the advice of the elected state government, reinforcing state
authority over administrative matters. The Supreme Court has been
instrumental in interpreting the legislative powers of the Centre and
states, particularly regarding conflicts in the Union, State, and
Concurrent Lists under the Seventh Schedule.

i.Doctrine of Pith and Substance – This doctrine helps resolve conflicts

when a law passed by one authority appears to encroach upon
another’s jurisdiction. The Court examines the true nature and intent of
the law rather than just its wording.
ii. Doctrine of Colourable Legislation – Prevents legislative bodies from
passing laws indirectly on subjects they are not constitutionally
allowed to legislate on.

iii. Doctrine of Repugnancy – Applied when a state law conflicts with a

central law on a Concurrent List subject, ensuring that central
legislation prevails under Article 254.

Additionally, the Court has played a role in protecting regional

identities by upholding special provisions under Article 371 and the
Fifth & Sixth Schedules, which provide autonomy to tribal and
northeastern regions. Judicial interpretations have been instrumental
in maintaining the delicate balance of power between the Centre
and the states. While the Constitution grants the Union government
significant authority, the Supreme Court has ensured that federalism
remains a core principle of governance by limiting central overreach,
reinforcing state autonomy, and ensuring fair financial and legislative
distribution. As India’s federal structure evolves, the judiciary’s role
remains vital in safeguarding democratic principles and ensuring
harmonious Centre-State relations.

Economic Impact
India’s federal structure has been significantly influenced by
economic and political centralization, often leading to an imbalance
in the distribution of powers between the Centre and the states. While
the Constitution envisions a quasi-federal system, various factors such
as financial dependence, political intervention, central control over
policymaking, and institutional mechanisms have tilted the balance in
favor of the Union government. This has impacted governance at
multiple levels, restricting states' ability to function independently while
also creating disputes over resources, policies, and legislative
authority.
Political centralization has emerged as a dominant feature in India’s
federalism, often reducing state autonomy. The constitutional
framework already provides the Centre with significant powers over
the states, but in practice, this centralization has expanded due to the
increasing
11
role of national political parties, the authority of the Union
government, and the role of constitutional offices such as the
Governor. One of the primary ways in which political centralization
manifests is through the use of Article 356, which allows the Centre to
impose President’s Rule in states. Historically, this provision has been
used multiple times to dismiss state governments, often on political
grounds rather than genuine constitutional crises. The S.R. Bommai
case (1994) set certain restrictions on the misuse of this provision, yet
concerns remain about its application. Additionally, the Rajya Sabha,
which is meant to represent the interests of states, has often been
dominated by national political parties rather than serving as a strong
voice for regional concerns. Unlike the U.S. Senate, where each state
has equal representation, India's Rajya Sabha is influenced by political
majorities in state legislatures, making it susceptible to partisan control
rather than being a protector of federalism. The presence of All India
Services (IAS, IPS, IFS) ensures that top bureaucratic positions in state
governments are controlled by officers recruited and trained by the
Union government. While this ensures a uniform standard of
governance, it also means that state governments often lack full
control over their own administrative machinery. This creates friction
between the Centre and states, particularly in instances where state
governments seek greater autonomy in decision-making.
Moreover, there have been increasing concerns over the role of
Governors as representatives of the Union government, especially in
opposition-ruled states. Governors, appointed by the President on the
recommendation of the Union government, often play a controversial
role in state politics, including delaying the assent of bills, influencing
government formation, and interfering in legislative processes.
This has led to several disputes, with states arguing for greater
independence from central interference. Economic centralization has
played a crucial role in shaping India’s federal landscape, with the
Union government controlling most financial resources and
determining their distribution among states. This has resulted in fiscal
imbalances, making states dependent on central grants and limiting
their financial autonomy.
One of the most significant aspects of economic centralization is the
distribution of revenue between the Centre and states. Under the
Constitution, the Centre collects a majority of taxes, and revenue is
shared based on recommendations from the Finance Commission.
Although the 15th Finance Commission recommended that 41% of
the Union’s tax revenue be devolved to states, there are ongoing
concerns that the Union government still retains significant control
over the actual allocation of funds.
Additionally, the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) has
further centralized taxation. While GST was designed to create a
uniform tax structure across the country, it has reduced states’ ability
to independently generate revenue through indirect taxes. The GST
Council, which decides tax rates, is heavily influenced by the Union
government, leaving states with less flexibility in shaping their own
economic policies. Delays in GST compensation payments have
further worsened states' financial situations, affecting their ability to
undertake development initiatives. Another crucial factor in
economic centralization is the dependence of states on centrally
sponsored schemes (CSS). Programs such as MNREGA, Ayushman
Bharat, and PM Kisan are largely designed and funded by the Union
government, leaving little room for states to implement region-specific
policies. While these schemes contribute to national development,
they often come with conditions that restrict states from modifying
them according to their specific needs.
Furthermore, borrowing restrictions imposed on states under Article
293 require them to seek approval from the Centre before raising
loans beyond a certain limit. This provision, while meant to ensure
financial stability, often restricts states from financing their own
developmental projects. States argue that they should be granted
more autonomy in budgetary planning and borrowing, especially as
many of them have strong economic bases capable of managing
their finances independently. The increasing economic and political
centralization in India has had several implications on federalism,
affecting governance, fiscal stability, and the balance of power
between the Centre and states.

•Erosion of State Autonomy: States have limited control over taxation

and policymaking, making them financially dependent on central
allocations. Moreover, the intervention of central agencies like the
CBI, NIA, and ED in state matters has raised concerns about political
interference.

a.Fiscal Imbalance and Unequal Distribution of Resources: The present

financial structure disproportionately favors the Centre, with richer
states contributing more but receiving less in return, while poorer
states remain dependent on central grants and subsidies. This creates
regional economic disparities, weakening the ability of more
developed states to invest in infrastructure and innovation.

b. Weakening of State-Specific Policy Autonomy: Decisions such as the

Farm Laws (2020) and New Education Policy (2020) were introduced
without adequate consultation with states, leading to policy conflicts
and opposition from regional governments.

c. Political Influence Over State Governance: The growing role of

Governors and the imposition of President’s Rule in opposition-ruled
states has led to increased political interference, making it difficult for
state governments to function independently.
d. Call for Greater Federal Reforms: Several states have demanded
greater fiscal and legislative autonomy, calling for reforms in revenue
distribution, GST compensation mechanisms, and central-state
relations. There is also a need for a more structured dialogue between
the Centre and states to ensure that federal principles are upheld.
The increasing economic and political centralization in India has
reshaped federalism, often leading to tensions between the Union
and state governments. While centralization has helped in national
policy coherence and economic stability, it has also resulted in power
imbalances, reduced state autonomy, and fiscal dependency. For
India’s federalism to remain strong and effective, it is essential to
introduce structural reforms that allow states greater financial and
legislative freedom while ensuring a cooperative model of
governance. The future of India’s federalism will depend on how well
the balance of power between the Centre and states is maintained,
ensuring both national unity and regional autonomy.

Global Perspective on Federalism

Federalism is a widely adopted system of governance worldwide,
though its structure and functioning vary across different countries. By
analyzing global models of federalism, we can gain insights into how
various nations have balanced power between central and regional
governments. Comparing India’s federal structure with global
counterparts provides useful lessons on governance, fiscal federalism,
political decentralization, and intergovernmental relations.
1. Federalism Models Across the World
Several countries follow a federal system, each adapting it to their
unique political, economic, and social contexts. Broadly, federalism
can be categorized into:

•Dual Federalism (Layer Cake Federalism): Power is distinctly divided

between the national and regional governments, with minimal
overlap. Example: United States (before the New Deal).
• Cooperative Federalism (Marble Cake Federalism): National and
regional governments share responsibilities and collaborate on
policymaking. Example: Germany and Canada.

• Asymmetrical Federalism: Different states or provinces within the

same country enjoy varying degrees of autonomy. Example: Russia
and Spain.

•Fiscal Federalism: Focuses on the distribution of financial resources

between different levels of government, ensuring adequate funding
for local governance. Example: Australia and Switzerland.

2. Key Global Examples of Federalism

a) United States – A Strong Model of Dual Federalism
The U.S. federal system grants significant autonomy to individual states
while maintaining a strong central government. Key features include:

•Clear separation of powers: The U.S. Constitution outlines specific

powers for the federal and state governments, limiting central
overreach.

•Financial autonomy: States have independent taxation powers,

unlike India, where the Centre controls most revenues.

•Supreme Court as the final arbitrator: Judicial review ensures that

conflicts between federal and state laws are resolved within the
constitutional framework.
Despite its strong federal structure, political and judicial interventions
have sometimes led to debates on state rights vs. federal authority,
especially on issues like civil rights, taxation, and environmental
regulations.

b) Canada – Cooperative Federalism with a Decentralized Approach

Canada follows a decentralized model, allowing provinces greater
control over policymaking. Notable features include:

•Independent control over healthcare and education: Provinces

have significant autonomy in areas like social welfare and education,
unlike India's centrally driven policies.

•Equalization payments: A fiscal mechanism that ensures wealthier

provinces contribute to the economic development of poorer
regions, maintaining regional balance.

•Cultural and linguistic autonomy: Quebec, a predominantly French-

speaking province, has unique privileges, reflecting asymmetrical
federalism.

The Canadian model provides lessons for India, especially in handling

linguistic and regional diversity while maintaining national cohesion.

c) Germany – A Balanced and Cooperative Federal Structure

Germany's Bundesstaat (federal state) system is one of the most
balanced federal models, promoting both national unity and state
autonomy. It features:

•Bundesrat (Upper House) representation: Unlike India's Rajya Sabha,

Germany's Bundesrat gives state governments direct participation in
national policymaking.

•Strong fiscal federalism: States (Länder) share tax revenues with the
federal government, ensuring financial autonomy.

•Equal partnership between Centre and states: Laws are often

passed through consensus, reducing central dominance.
Germany’s model of cooperative federalism offers a structured
approach to intergovernmental negotiations, which India could
consider in areas like GST reforms and revenue sharing.
d) Australia – A Financially Empowered Federal System
Australia’s federalism ensures a strong division of powers, especially in
financial matters. Features include:

•High fiscal autonomy for states: Unlike India, where financial control
lies with the Centre, Australian states have significant control over
revenue generation.

•Intergovernmental cooperation mechanisms: The Council of

Australian Governments (COAG) facilitates collaboration between
federal and state governments.

•Judicial independence: The High Court of Australia plays a crucial

role in resolving federal-state disputes, ensuring fair governance.
Australia's emphasis on fiscal independence and institutionalized
cooperation is a model India can examine to strengthen Centre-state
financial relations.

3. Lessons for India from Global Federal Models

•Financial Autonomy for States: Countries like the U.S. and Australia
provide their states with independent taxation rights. India can
consider granting states greater financial control to reduce
dependency on central grants.

•Institutionalized Cooperative Federalism: Germany’s Bundesrat

model ensures that states actively participate in policymaking. India
could improve Rajya Sabha’s role in representing state interests more
effectively.

•Flexibility in Federal Arrangements: Canada’s asymmetrical

federalism accommodates linguistic and cultural diversity. India can
explore similar models for culturally distinct states like the Northeast
and Jammu & Kashmir.
•
3. Lessons for India from Global Federal Models

•Financial Autonomy for States: Countries like the U.S. and Australia
provide their states with independent taxation rights. India can
consider granting states greater financial control to reduce
dependency on central grants.

•Institutionalized Cooperative Federalism: Germany’s Bundesrat

model ensures that states actively participate in policymaking. India
could improve Rajya Sabha’s role in representing state interests more
effectively.

•Flexibility in Federal Arrangements: Canada’s asymmetrical

federalism accommodates linguistic and cultural diversity. India can
explore similar models for culturally distinct states like the Northeast
and Jammu & Kashmir.

•Conflict Resolution Mechanisms: Many federal countries have strong

intergovernmental councils to resolve disputes, ensuring cooperative
governance. India could strengthen the Inter-State Council to act as a
more effective mediator between the Centre and states.
 References
1. Landmark Cases on Federalism
i. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) – Restricted the arbitrary use of
Article 356 (President’s Rule) and affirmed that federalism is a part of
the basic structure of the Constitution.

ii.State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1963) – Held that Indian

federalism is unique and leans towards "cooperative federalism"
rather than strict separation.

iii.Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) – Reinforced the

basic structure doctrine, ensuring that federalism cannot be altered
beyond a certain limit.

iv.Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006) – Struck down the

dissolution of the Bihar Assembly, reinforcing the principle that
governor’s discretion cannot be misused for political gain.

v. Gujarat v. Union of India (2012) – Addressed concerns regarding the

financial dependence of states and the role of the Centre in revenue
allocation.

vi. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2018) – Defined the

powers of the elected government of Delhi, emphasizing the need for
a balance between central and state authorities.
2. Constitutional Articles Related to Federalism

i. Article 1-4 – Define the Union and its territory, allowing for the
reorganization of states.

ii. Article 246 – Distributes legislative powers between the Union and
State governments.

iii. Article 256-263 – Discuss Centre-State relations in administrative

matters, including executive control and dispute resolution.

iv. Article 280 – Establishes the Finance Commission, which

recommends financial devolution between the Centre and states.

v. Article 356 – Allows the President to impose President’s Rule in states,

a provision often criticized for central overreach.

vi. Article 368 – Governs the procedure for constitutional amendments,

some of which require state ratification.

3. Reports and Research Papers on Federalism

i. Sarkaria Commission Report (1983) – Analyzed Centre-State relations
and recommended measures to strengthen federalism.

ii. Punchhi Commission Report (2007) – Suggested reforms in

governance, taxation, and the use of Article 356.

iii. Finance Commission Reports – Provide data on fiscal devolution,

revenue-sharing, and the impact of economic centralization on state
autonomy.

iv. National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution

(2002) – Recommended amendments to preserve the autonomy of
states while maintaining national integrity.
v. "Indian Federalism: A Case Study of Centre-State Relations"
(published in EPW) – Examines historical trends and contemporary
challenges in Indian federalism.

vi. The Changing Nature of Federalism in India" (published by

Observer Research Foundation) – Explores how political centralization
affects federalism.