{"id":391,"date":"2020-07-04T10:58:29","date_gmt":"2020-07-04T10:58:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/?p=391"},"modified":"2020-07-04T10:58:29","modified_gmt":"2020-07-04T10:58:29","slug":"the-federal-system","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/2020\/07\/04\/the-federal-system\/","title":{"rendered":"The Federal System"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Administrative Relations Between The Union And <\/strong> The States<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

One\nof the most difficult problems under a federal system is the adjustment of\nadministrative relations between the Union and the States. In the absence of\nclear provisions in the Constitution, considerable difficulty is often\nexperienced by the Union and the States in the discharge of their\nresponsibilities. The framers of the Indian Constitution, therefore, decided to\ninclude detailed provisions so as to avoid clashes between the Union and the\nStates in the administrative field. Here again, the pattern that is adopted is\nbased mainly on that which was established under the Government of India Act,\n1935.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Article 256, the executive power of\nevery State is to be exercised in such a way as to ensure compliance with the\nlaws made by Parliament. Further, the Union Executive is empowered to give such\ndirections to a State as may appear to the Government of India to be necessary\nfor the purpose. The idea of the Union giving directions to the States is\nforeign to most federations. It is looked upon with suspicion and distrust in\nthe United States. In Australia, too, the position is more or less the same.\nYet, it is difficult to see how this can altogether be avoided in practice. If\nthe Centre did not have such power, it would become impossible to secure the\nproper execution of the laws which Parliament was obliged to enact. Take, for\ninstance, laws such as the untouchability abolition law, factory legislation, child\nmarriage abolition law, etc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Giving\nDirection To The States<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not satisfied with the general power of the\nUnion to give directions to the States, the Constitution goes a step further\nand calls upon every State (under Article 257) not to impede or prejudice the\nexecutive power of the Union in the State. If any Union agency finds it\ndifficult to function within a State, the Union executive is empowered to issue\nappropriate directions to the State government to remove all obstacles. The\nUnion\u2019s power of giving directions in this regard includes certain specific\nmatters such as :<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(1) the construction and maintenance of means of\ncommunication which are of national or military importance; and<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(2) the protection of railways within the\nStates. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This power of giving directions does not in any\nway affect the power of Parliament to declare highways or waterways as national\nhighways or the power of the Union to construct and maintain means of\ncommunication as part of its functions with respect to naval, military or air\nforce works.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is possible that by reason of the special\ndirections given by the Centre, some extra cost above normal may be incurred by\nthe States in the performance of the service. The Constitution provides for\ncompensating the States for the extra expenditure they incur on account of\nundertaking such tasks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Constitution also empowers the Union\nExecutive, with the consent of the government of a State, to entrust to that\ngovernment or its officers, functions which fall within the scope of the\nUnion\u2019s executive functions. Parliament is also empowered, in a similar manner,\nto confer power or impose duties on State officers through any of its laws\nwhich has application in a State. The Union government will pay to the State\nthe cost involved in the discharge of such functions by the State or its\nofficers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Transaction\nOf AdministrativeBusiness<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another provision that facilitates the smooth\ntransaction of administrative business is embodied in Article 261. According to\nthis, full faith and credit shall be given to public acts, records and judicial\nproceedings of the Union and the States in all parts of the Indian territory.\nThe manner in which these acts and records shall be proved and their effect\ndetermined shall be provided by parliamentary enactments. Provision is also\nmade for the execution of final judgments or orders delivered or passed by civil\ncourts in any part of India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Constitution has an important provision\nembodied in Article 262 dealing with the waters of inter-state rivers or river\nvalleys. Aware of the unending inter-state disputes over this subject in other\nfederations, particularly the United States, the Constitution-makers decided\nthat the power to deal with this subject should be vested exclusively in the\nParliament. Thus, Parliament may, by law, provide for the adjudication of any\ndispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution or control of the\nwaters of any inter-State river or river valley. Parliament may also provide\nthat neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise any\njurisdiction in respect of any such dispute or complaint. The importance of this\nprovision is evident in the context of the many inter-State multi-purpose river\nvalley projects which have been undertaken or are being undertaken in different\nparts of the country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, to facilitate smooth working of the\nadministrative machinery of the country as a whole as well as to ensure better\ncoordination of policy and action between the Union and the States or between\nthe States themselves, the Constitution empowers the President to appoint an\nInter-State Council whenever the necessity is felt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The President is empowered not only to establish\nsuch a Council but also to determine its organisation and procedure and to\ndefine the nature of its duties. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

An analysis of the legislative and\nadministrative relations between the Union and the States shows that the\nfederal system established under the Constitution, like other similar systems,\naims at achieving the fundamental objective of unity in diversity. A\nfederation, being a dual polity based on the division of authority in all the\nprincipal departments of the government, is bound to produce diversities in\nlaws, administration and judicial protection. Up to a certain point, the\ndiversity is to be welcomed as an attempt to accommodate the powers of the\nState government to local needs and circumstances. But when it goes beyond a\npoint, it is capable of creating chaos and has, indeed, produced chaos in many\nfederal States. The framers of the Constitution were aware of the possible\ninherent dangers of a federal system. Conditions in India at the time of the\ntransfer of power and immediately afterwards were such that those in authority\nfeared that a federal set up without adequate special safeguards to preserve\nunity would dissipate the century-old effort at national unity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Partners\nOf An Integrated System<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the same time, it would have been politically\nunwise and impossible in practice to abandon altogether the idea of\nestablishing a federal system. Moreover, when vast areas are brought under a\nsingle national government, perhaps no constitutional form except federalism\ncan weld them together as willing partners of an integrated system. As\nindependence without security would be short-lived, the predominant\nconsideration in devising a Federal Union was the urge for the preservation of\nindependence. But for this paramount consideration and the existence of a vague\nunderlying cultural unity, India presents a picture of perplexing diversity. It\nhas an area almost as large as Europe minus Russia and a larger population than\nthat of the whole of Europe. The number of well-developed languages in India is\nmore than in the whole of Western and Central Europe and the racial and\ncultural differences more pronounced than in continental Europe. In these\ncircumstances, it was not easy to frame a federal constitution that could\nsatisfy at once the urge for independence and the paramount need for security.\nThe framers of the Constitution, in their attempt to satisfy both these\nobjectives, designed a federal system embodying several special features not\ngenerally found in other federations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The distinctive features which place the Indian\nfederation almost in a class by itself are as follows :<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Division\nof Powers<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

(1) The division of powers between the Union and\nthe States is the most elaborate ever attempted by any federal constitution.\nAlthough the idea of a Concurrent List of powers is not new, no other\nconstitution has enumerated the items in such detail and included in it a\nvariety of subjects with a view to eliminating, as far as possible, litigation\nbetween the Union and the States and also the diversity of law courts and\nprocedures. The residuary powers are vested in the Union.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(2) Usually, under a federal system, the States\nhave their own constitutions, separate from that of the Union. This is the case\nin the United States. The Indian Constitution, on the contrary, embodies not\nonly the Constitution of the Union but also those of the States.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(3) Under the Indian federation, the territorial\njurisdiction of the States can be changed, States themselves abolished and new\nStates created, without resorting to the procedure prescribed for amending the\nConstitution (Article 3). That is, the territorial pattern of the federal\nsystem as it exists today can be reorganised with suitable adjustments without\nresorting to the comparatively difficult process of a constitutional amendment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(4) Dual citizenship is a usual feature that\ngoes with the dual form of government established under a federation. As a\nresult, each member-State has the right to grant its citizens or residents\ncertain rights which it may deny, or grant on more difficult terms, to\nnon-residents. This was a striking feature of the American federation in its\nearly days. As time passed by, the rigours of dual citizenship have become\nless. Still the idea continues to be associated with the federal system of\ngovernment. In India, however, it has no place. The Constitution has\nestablished single citizenship. Indians, no matter where they reside, are all\nequal in the eyes of the law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(5) Dual polity involves in certain federations\na double system of judiciary. For example, in the United States, the States\nhave their own judicial systems unrelated to and uncoordinated with the federal\njudiciary. Australia, too, follows more or less the same pattern. But in India,\nthe Supreme Court and the High Courts form a single integrated judicial system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(6) A unique feature of the Indianfederal system\nis its ability to adapt itself to changing circumstances. This is in contrast\nwith the general characteristic of rigidity associated with federal\nconstitutions. Normally, the Indian Constitution is meant to be federal. But\nunder an emergency, it can assume a unitary character. The process of\nchange-over does not involve any complicated constitutional process. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

(7) The Constitution vests certain extraordinary\npowers in the Union Government even during normal times. Thus, a resolution\nsupported by two-thirds majority of the Council of States can temporarily\ntransfer any item from the State List to the Union List, enabling Parliament to\npass laws on such items in the national interest. It also provides for\nParliament to pass laws on items in the State List if two or more States ask\nfor it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(8) The heads of the States\u2014the Governors\u2014are\nappointed by the President. They hold office during his pleasure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Minimum\nAdministrative Standards<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

(9) The Constitution has certain special\nprovisions to ensure the uniformity of the administrative system and to\nmaintain minimum common administrative standards without impairing the federal\nprinciple. These include the creation of all-India services such as the Indian\nAdministrative Service and the Indian Police Service and placing the members of\nthese services in key administrative positions in the States.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(10) Appointments to the High Courts are made by\nthe President, and the judges of the High Courts can be transferred by the\nPresident from one High Court to another.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(11) The Comptroller and Auditor-General of\nIndia has an organisation managed by the officers of the Indian Audit and\nAccounts Service\u2014a Central service\u2014who are concerned not only with the accounts\nand auditing of the Union government, but also those of the States.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(12) The Election Commission, a body appointed\nby the President, is in charge of conducting elections not only to Parliament\nand to other elective offices of the Union, but also to those of the State\nlegislatures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(13) Although every Bill passed by the State\nlegislatures normally becomes law with the assent of the Governor, certain\nBills have to be reserved for the assent of the President.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(14) The provision for giving grants-in-aid and\nloans from the Union to the States and the consequent capacity which the Union\nhas to influence the States is a special feature of our Constitution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(15) The Constitution vests powers in the\nUnion and its agencies to resolve conflicts that arise between the Union and\nthe States. The Finance Commission, the Inter-State Council, etc., are examples\nof such agencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(16) Finally, Constitutional amend-ment,\ntoo, is comparatively a simple process in India. This, again, emphasises the\nflexibility of federal Constitution. Ultimately, the test of a Constitution is\nin its working. If it is found to be defective in any respect in its actual\nworking,  it should be amended. For this,\nthe amendment process should be reasonably simple and easy.  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[3],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/391"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=391"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/391\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":392,"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/391\/revisions\/392"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=391"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=391"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.competitionreview.in\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=391"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}