Administrative Relations Between The Union And The States
One of the most difficult problems under a federal system is the adjustment of administrative relations between the Union and the States. In the absence of clear provisions in the Constitution, considerable difficulty is often experienced by the Union and the States in the discharge of their responsibilities. The framers of the Indian Constitution, therefore, decided to include detailed provisions so as to avoid clashes between the Union and the States in the administrative field. Here again, the pattern that is adopted is based mainly on that which was established under the Government of India Act, 1935.
According to Article 256, the executive power of every State is to be exercised in such a way as to ensure compliance with the laws made by Parliament. Further, the Union Executive is empowered to give such directions to a State as may appear to the Government of India to be necessary for the purpose. The idea of the Union giving directions to the States is foreign to most federations. It is looked upon with suspicion and distrust in the United States. In Australia, too, the position is more or less the same. Yet, it is difficult to see how this can altogether be avoided in practice. If the Centre did not have such power, it would become impossible to secure the proper execution of the laws which Parliament was obliged to enact. Take, for instance, laws such as the untouchability abolition law, factory legislation, child marriage abolition law, etc.
Giving Direction To The States
Not satisfied with the general power of the Union to give directions to the States, the Constitution goes a step further and calls upon every State (under Article 257) not to impede or prejudice the executive power of the Union in the State. If any Union agency finds it difficult to function within a State, the Union executive is empowered to issue appropriate directions to the State government to remove all obstacles. The Union’s power of giving directions in this regard includes certain specific matters such as :
(1) the construction and maintenance of means of communication which are of national or military importance; and
(2) the protection of railways within the States.
This power of giving directions does not in any way affect the power of Parliament to declare highways or waterways as national highways or the power of the Union to construct and maintain means of communication as part of its functions with respect to naval, military or air force works.
It is possible that by reason of the special directions given by the Centre, some extra cost above normal may be incurred by the States in the performance of the service. The Constitution provides for compensating the States for the extra expenditure they incur on account of undertaking such tasks.
The Constitution also empowers the Union Executive, with the consent of the government of a State, to entrust to that government or its officers, functions which fall within the scope of the Union’s executive functions. Parliament is also empowered, in a similar manner, to confer power or impose duties on State officers through any of its laws which has application in a State. The Union government will pay to the State the cost involved in the discharge of such functions by the State or its officers.
Transaction Of AdministrativeBusiness
Another provision that facilitates the smooth transaction of administrative business is embodied in Article 261. According to this, full faith and credit shall be given to public acts, records and judicial proceedings of the Union and the States in all parts of the Indian territory. The manner in which these acts and records shall be proved and their effect determined shall be provided by parliamentary enactments. Provision is also made for the execution of final judgments or orders delivered or passed by civil courts in any part of India.
The Constitution has an important provision embodied in Article 262 dealing with the waters of inter-state rivers or river valleys. Aware of the unending inter-state disputes over this subject in other federations, particularly the United States, the Constitution-makers decided that the power to deal with this subject should be vested exclusively in the Parliament. Thus, Parliament may, by law, provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution or control of the waters of any inter-State river or river valley. Parliament may also provide that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise any jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute or complaint. The importance of this provision is evident in the context of the many inter-State multi-purpose river valley projects which have been undertaken or are being undertaken in different parts of the country.
Finally, to facilitate smooth working of the administrative machinery of the country as a whole as well as to ensure better coordination of policy and action between the Union and the States or between the States themselves, the Constitution empowers the President to appoint an Inter-State Council whenever the necessity is felt.
The President is empowered not only to establish such a Council but also to determine its organisation and procedure and to define the nature of its duties.
An analysis of the legislative and administrative relations between the Union and the States shows that the federal system established under the Constitution, like other similar systems, aims at achieving the fundamental objective of unity in diversity. A federation, being a dual polity based on the division of authority in all the principal departments of the government, is bound to produce diversities in laws, administration and judicial protection. Up to a certain point, the diversity is to be welcomed as an attempt to accommodate the powers of the State government to local needs and circumstances. But when it goes beyond a point, it is capable of creating chaos and has, indeed, produced chaos in many federal States. The framers of the Constitution were aware of the possible inherent dangers of a federal system. Conditions in India at the time of the transfer of power and immediately afterwards were such that those in authority feared that a federal set up without adequate special safeguards to preserve unity would dissipate the century-old effort at national unity.
Partners Of An Integrated System
At the same time, it would have been politically unwise and impossible in practice to abandon altogether the idea of establishing a federal system. Moreover, when vast areas are brought under a single national government, perhaps no constitutional form except federalism can weld them together as willing partners of an integrated system. As independence without security would be short-lived, the predominant consideration in devising a Federal Union was the urge for the preservation of independence. But for this paramount consideration and the existence of a vague underlying cultural unity, India presents a picture of perplexing diversity. It has an area almost as large as Europe minus Russia and a larger population than that of the whole of Europe. The number of well-developed languages in India is more than in the whole of Western and Central Europe and the racial and cultural differences more pronounced than in continental Europe. In these circumstances, it was not easy to frame a federal constitution that could satisfy at once the urge for independence and the paramount need for security. The framers of the Constitution, in their attempt to satisfy both these objectives, designed a federal system embodying several special features not generally found in other federations.
The distinctive features which place the Indian federation almost in a class by itself are as follows :
Division of Powers
(1) The division of powers between the Union and the States is the most elaborate ever attempted by any federal constitution. Although the idea of a Concurrent List of powers is not new, no other constitution has enumerated the items in such detail and included in it a variety of subjects with a view to eliminating, as far as possible, litigation between the Union and the States and also the diversity of law courts and procedures. The residuary powers are vested in the Union.
(2) Usually, under a federal system, the States have their own constitutions, separate from that of the Union. This is the case in the United States. The Indian Constitution, on the contrary, embodies not only the Constitution of the Union but also those of the States.
(3) Under the Indian federation, the territorial jurisdiction of the States can be changed, States themselves abolished and new States created, without resorting to the procedure prescribed for amending the Constitution (Article 3). That is, the territorial pattern of the federal system as it exists today can be reorganised with suitable adjustments without resorting to the comparatively difficult process of a constitutional amendment.
(4) Dual citizenship is a usual feature that goes with the dual form of government established under a federation. As a result, each member-State has the right to grant its citizens or residents certain rights which it may deny, or grant on more difficult terms, to non-residents. This was a striking feature of the American federation in its early days. As time passed by, the rigours of dual citizenship have become less. Still the idea continues to be associated with the federal system of government. In India, however, it has no place. The Constitution has established single citizenship. Indians, no matter where they reside, are all equal in the eyes of the law.
(5) Dual polity involves in certain federations a double system of judiciary. For example, in the United States, the States have their own judicial systems unrelated to and uncoordinated with the federal judiciary. Australia, too, follows more or less the same pattern. But in India, the Supreme Court and the High Courts form a single integrated judicial system.
(6) A unique feature of the Indianfederal system is its ability to adapt itself to changing circumstances. This is in contrast with the general characteristic of rigidity associated with federal constitutions. Normally, the Indian Constitution is meant to be federal. But under an emergency, it can assume a unitary character. The process of change-over does not involve any complicated constitutional process.
(7) The Constitution vests certain extraordinary powers in the Union Government even during normal times. Thus, a resolution supported by two-thirds majority of the Council of States can temporarily transfer any item from the State List to the Union List, enabling Parliament to pass laws on such items in the national interest. It also provides for Parliament to pass laws on items in the State List if two or more States ask for it.
(8) The heads of the States—the Governors—are appointed by the President. They hold office during his pleasure.
Minimum Administrative Standards
(9) The Constitution has certain special provisions to ensure the uniformity of the administrative system and to maintain minimum common administrative standards without impairing the federal principle. These include the creation of all-India services such as the Indian Administrative Service and the Indian Police Service and placing the members of these services in key administrative positions in the States.
(10) Appointments to the High Courts are made by the President, and the judges of the High Courts can be transferred by the President from one High Court to another.
(11) The Comptroller and Auditor-General of India has an organisation managed by the officers of the Indian Audit and Accounts Service—a Central service—who are concerned not only with the accounts and auditing of the Union government, but also those of the States.
(12) The Election Commission, a body appointed by the President, is in charge of conducting elections not only to Parliament and to other elective offices of the Union, but also to those of the State legislatures.
(13) Although every Bill passed by the State legislatures normally becomes law with the assent of the Governor, certain Bills have to be reserved for the assent of the President.
(14) The provision for giving grants-in-aid and loans from the Union to the States and the consequent capacity which the Union has to influence the States is a special feature of our Constitution.
(15) The Constitution vests powers in the Union and its agencies to resolve conflicts that arise between the Union and the States. The Finance Commission, the Inter-State Council, etc., are examples of such agencies.
(16) Finally, Constitutional amend-ment, too, is comparatively a simple process in India. This, again, emphasises the flexibility of federal Constitution. Ultimately, the test of a Constitution is in its working. If it is found to be defective in any respect in its actual working, it should be amended. For this, the amendment process should be reasonably simple and easy.