Tag Archives: constitution of india

Case Summary

S.R. BOMMAI v. UNION OF INDIA 1994 (3) SCC 1, AIR 2017 SC 2734

Leave a comment

This Case Summary is written by Ankush Talwar & Kamaksshee Khajuria, students of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar National Law University,  Sonepat, Haryana

SYNOPSIS

‘S.R. Bommai v. Union of India’ is a historical landmark judgment given by the Supreme Court, which talks about the Presidential Proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution of India. It acts as a guide for all the issues arising out of the Centre-state relations and misuse of Article 356. Under this Article, ‘the Central government can take control over a State government, in a situation wherein the State legislative machinery cannot function in accordance with the Constitutional provisions and that’s why the matters pertaining to this Article may involve controversy.’ So, to restrict such unconstitutional removal of the State governments by the Centre, the court firmly held that the General Assembly will have the authority to decide the imposition of a valid proclamation and not the Central government.

BACKGROUND 

This case mainly focuses upon Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, which deals with the emergency provision for imposing Presidential Proclamation upon a State. However, this Article was regarded as a “dead letter” of the Constitution by Dr B.R. Ambedkar due to its misuse as a political tool. Under this Article, the elected state government is dismissed and the Governor of the state, who is a functionary of the federal government, directly becomes in charge of the overall state’s administration. But this power was being repeatedly misused by the Centre to dismiss the state governments of opposite political parties, even without any genuine reasons, which violated the federal character of the Indian political system and the doctrine of popular sovereignty. Thus, to stop this unconstitutional removal of the state governments and to solve the scuffle between the Centre and the States, this judgment was passed.

FACTS OF THE CASE

S.R. Bommai was the 11th Chief Minister of Karnataka, who was representing the Janata Dal Government during the year 1989. On 21st April, his government was dissolved due to the lack of majority support and the President’s Rule was imposed under Article 356(1) of the Constitution. Bommai recommended the Governor to summon the Assembly to conduct a floor test and review the party’s majority, but his idea was rejected and after the approval of the Parliament under Article 356(3), his government was finally dismissed. A writ petition was filed by Bommai in the Karnataka High Court challenging the validity of the Presidential Proclamation, but his petition was dismissed stating that “under Article 356(1), the extent of judicial review is limited and the President’s satisfaction is a valid prerequisite for a legitimate proclamation.” Unsatisfied with the High Court’s decision, Bommai then appealed in the Supreme Court of India stating that the dismissal of his government was merely a ‘political act’ and the imposition of the President’s rule was mala fide, as there were no genuine reasons. Moreover, neither a chance was given to him to prove his party’s majority nor the facts were disclosed by the Central Government upon which the satisfaction was derived, as a part of their duty under Article 74(2). Similar kinds of proclamations were also made in the states like Meghalaya, Nagaland, etc, and thus all these cases were then collectively heard by the Supreme Court to stop the further abuse of Article 356.

PERTINENT ISSUES 

Some important issues raised in the instant case were:- 

  1. What is the Constitutional validity of Presidential Proclamation under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution?
  2. Whether the president has unfettered powers under Article 356(1)?
  3. Whether the imposition of the President’s rule is challengeable and amenable to judicial review? If yes, then to what extent?  
  4. What does the expression in Article 356(1) stating that “a situation has arisen wherein the state legislative functions cannot be in cooperation with constitutional provisions” mean?

CONTENTIONS 

Various Contentions made by both the Petitioner and Respondents are as follows:- 

PETITIONER

  1. The major contention of the petitioner was that he was not given a single chance to prove his party’s majority. Moreover, neither a floor test was conducted nor the Assembly was summoned even after the suggestions had been made to the Governor for the same.
  2. Further, it was contended that the imposition of the President’s Rule was completely mala fide and it is solely a political act since the mere fact of disturbance, torching and looting in the area is no ground for enforcing presidential proclamation, citing that the party is incompetent and must be dissolved. The true motive behind such imposition was to consolidate the power with the centre and put the representatives of the state in a socially unenforceable and inequitable position.
  3. Petitioner also contended that no material facts were presented upon which the president had derived the satisfaction to impose the emergency and dismiss the government. Under Article 74(2), it is the duty of the Union government to reveal all the material facts to both the State’s legislative members as well as the Court on behalf of which such proclamation was imposed and such a duty shouldn’t be ignored.
  4. Lastly, the petitioner made the contention that whether a president can dismiss a state legislature without the approval of both the Houses of the Parliament, and it was also contended that since Secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution, so whether a state government can be dissolved if it is found guilty for administering non-secular acts?

RESPONDENT

  1. The counsel of respondents contended that there is a distinction between the extent and nature of judicial review in constitutional law and administrative law. In administrative law, the court may expand its jurisdiction w.r.t the issues regarding the legislative powers of a governmental body but it doesn’t constitute the same authority in the field of constitutional law. The court can merely declare the actions as an abuse of discretion i.e., ultra vires. It was also contested that the courts don’t have the authority to decide the validity of the conditions for imposing a presidential proclamation. 
  2. Further, it was argued that a Presidential Proclamation would be issued by the President as per Article 356 (1) with the advice of the cabinet ministers as stated in Article 74 (1), but an inquiry into the question regarding whether or not if any advice is given to the President by the cabinet and the judicial review of the reasons on behalf of which the proclamation is made, is strictly ‘prohibited’ as per Clause 2 of the said Article.
  3. Respondents also contended that when the acts of the State Government are non-secular, then it can be dissolved under the contention of Secularism.

RATIO DECIDENDI

The Supreme Court on the basis of appropriate facts, findings and reasons gave the following judgement:- 

  • Interpretation of Article 356 and Judicial Review – It was held that under Article 356 (1), the President’s power to impose emergency is subject to judicial review, but to the extent of scrutinizing, whether the conditions relating to the issuance of the rule have been fulfilled or not. It was also reiterated that a president cannot dissolve a Legislative Assembly until his proclamation is approved by both the houses of the Parliament under Article 356 (3). However, he can adjourn the assembly under Article 356 (1)(c). It was also evaluated that the courts can reinstate the dissolved assembly (status quo) by overruling the proclamation as done in the case of “State of  Rajasthan v. Union of India, AIR 1977”. Justice Sawant and Justice Kuldip Singh interpreted that the use of Article 356 should be the last resort, and it should be imposed only when a state’s governance is unable to be carried out in conformity with the Constitutional provisions. The Jury also relied upon the reports of the Sarkaria Commission for stating different situations, where a President’s rule will be considered justifiable, like in case of failure of state machinery, political crisis, etc. It was also held that if a state government loses its majority or resigns, then the Governor cannot advise the President for imposing President’s rule until adequate measures had been taken to establish a substitute Government. 
  • Concept of Secularism and Federalism – The court observed that Secularism is an essential feature of the Indian Constitution and thus, if a state government administers any kind of unsecular policies or acts in opposition to the Constitution, then it may subject to a proclamation under Article 356. This case also talked about the concept of Federalism in contrast to the Presidential Proclamation, which had conflicting views. Justice Reddy held that “the states are not the projections of Centre and Centre doesn’t possess any power to interfere in State’s machinery unless it is critical”, while Justice Verma, Justice Ahmadi and Justice Dayal were of the view that “it is a part of basic structure of the constitution and that the politics cannot be mixed with religion by political parties.” However, despite the conflicting views, both secularism and federalism were unanimously accepted as the basic features of the Indian Constitution and nobody has the right to violate them. 

Therefore, the Court decreed in favour of the plaintiff by overruling the judgment of the Karnataka High Court and restored the dismissed state government of Janata Dal Party led by S.R. Bommai in Karnataka. Also, similar proclamations imposed in the states like Nagaland and Meghalaya were declared unconstitutional. In addition to this, the Court also gave proper directives w.r.t such proclamations being issued under Article 356 in future.

SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT

This landmark verdict had a huge impact on centre-state relations and thus, carries a great significance in Indian politics as it restored the federal character by stopping the arbitrary removal of State governments by the Centre to achieve political gains. It preserved the constitutional sanctity of the state government by limiting the use of Article 356. Although no question of constitutional amendment arose in this case, still the basic structure doctrine was implemented here. The judgment also ruled that a party’s majority will only be determined by a floor test and the approval by both the Houses of Parliament must be there for a valid proclamation, otherwise the dismissed government may be reinstated. The very first impact of this verdict can be seen during the year 1999 when the Vajpayee government was forced to reinstate the government it dissolved. It was also clarified that the Presidential Proclamation is subject to judicial review and even the policies of a state government which are administered against the basic structure of the Constitution, could be a valid ground for the imposition of President’s Rule under Article 356. So, it can be seen that the significance and impact of the S.R. Bommai Case have great relevance in India’s political history.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS 

This Case mainly deals with Article 356 which is an essential provision of the Indian Constitution as it functions to maintain the federal structure of the country and that is why its usage has increased over time. Since 2016, the Presidential rule has been imposed around 115 times in India and during the year 1991-1992 alone, it was imposed 9 times which was the highest till date. Thus, we can see that Article 356 was being used as a political tool, however after the passing of this judgment and formation of the ‘Sarkaria Commission’, its misuse has steadily declined. Although, there is a positive impact but the alarming concern was that even though the frequency has reduced yet the power was highly misused as only around 60 proclamations can be justified, while the remaining are controversial, which depicts that in more than a half of the cases, the power has been grossly misused. So with this alarming discovery, a very important question that arose was “whether this Article should be omitted or not?”, but keeping in view the significance of this Article in maintaining the balance of power between the Centre and the States, deleting it will not be a wise choice as it may lead to a negative impact upon the Centre-State relationship. So instead of deleting it, proper amendments should be made to avoid its misuse in future.    

Now when we look upon the interpretation of Judicial review in the instant case, we can see that even when it isn’t possible to establish a uniform law across all the cases, the judgment of this case established that the Judiciary is the ultimate interpreter and guardian of the Indian Constitution by any necessary means. It was the first time in case of “State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, AIR 1977”, where the notion of judicial review regarding the satisfaction of the President to impose president’s rule came before the Court even after the presence of bar under Article 74 (2) and Article 356 (5), which states that “the Presidential Satisfaction as mentioned in Clause 1 shall be final and conclusive and cannot be challenged in any court on any ground.” However, by omitting the said clause through the 44th Amendment Act, 1978 this exclusion was removed and after the Bommai case, it was concluded that Article 356 doesn’t enjoy transactional immunity. A similar kind of event took place in the case of “C.R. Das v. Union of India, AIR 1999”, where the Governor issued a report mentioning the breakdown of the constitutional machinery in the state, which however was refused by the president stating that ‘bad governance doesn’t amount to breakdown’.

In another case of “Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India, AIR 2005”, the court said that “the emergency Proclamation cannot be imposed upon the will of Governor, rather it must be made on real and cogent grounds.” However, the interim stay order was not issued and the fresh elections were organised in the above case, which signifies that the principles laid down by the Bommai case were not followed. Though, there were also cases like “Union of India v. Harish Chandra Singh Rawat, AIR 2016”, where the court in order to protect the democratic and federal spirit of the constitution went a step further to execute the floor test by removing the presidential rule for 2 hours. So, preventing the misuse of Article 356 was not always as simple and had its ups and downs.

Therefore, in short, we can say that the court has taken a bold step by making an exemplary effort to restrict the misuse of Article 356 by creating a distinction between the powers of the Centre to interfere in the governance of the State legislature.

CONCLUSION 

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India is a landmark case which not only deals with the basic structure of the Constitution but also strengthens the federal structure of Indian Politics by restricting the interference of the Centre in the State’s administration. Its main objective was to restrain the misuse of Article 356 by ending the practice of arbitrary removal of state governments and it also specified the scope of Judicial review even under the Presidential Proclamation. Besides this, the judgment also highlighted the concept of secularism and federalism as an important part of the basic structure of the constitution. So, it has undoubtedly played an important role in the development of constitutional law and due to its complex nature and conflicting opinions of the judges, it has gained much significance in history and even today. Therefore, it can be concluded that Article 356 is an essential provision of the Constitution of India.

Articles

CHALLENGES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF UNIFORM CIVIL COURT

Leave a comment

To get daily updates, Join Team Attorneylex’s WhatsApp group. 

Also, check us out on Instagram and Twitter

This article is written by Komal Saloni, a student of Banasthali Vidyapith, Rajasthan

 INTRODUCTION

Uniform Civil Court is a proposal to have a common set of governing laws for every citizen without taking into consideration the religion of people. Directive principles of state policies under Article 44 of the Constitution of India envisage having Uniform Civil Code in India. Putting into action Uniform Civil Code would mean that all the personal religious laws shall be kept cove and a uniform personal law governing areas of marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc. shall be put together. This law shall not keep in its spectrum of personal laws scrutinizing any religion or culture and it shall be the same for all persons regardless of their caste, ideology, or color. This is presumably the most deliberated topic in recent days and is full of discussions too. While a massive number of citizens favor it, an identical number of people are sporting their general ache with the idea.  The supporters of the move affirm spiritly by asserting that the existence of various personal laws creates a lot of puzzles and is also hard to act per the laws. The people pinpoint several drawbacks with the concept and thus present various statements against it. The debate still goes on and India right now has no UCC. 

ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE IMPLEMENTATION OF UCC

There are some disagreements and viewpoints in opposition to the application of a Uniform Civil Code. Here is some discussion of these arguments in detail: –

A move against secularism:

India is a secular country with diverse languages and traditions, anticipate people to act on identical laws, establish a uniform system is a bit ridiculous. The dispute is ground on the fact that India takes dignity in its rectitude within diversification. For continuing divergence, it is the duty to respect every minority communities and its distinctive laws. By this practice, India led to maintain law and order, tranquillity for a very long time. 

There is a question that arises that we have to ask individually, whether the violation of personal laws is admissible or not? 

There is a need for practicality while stepping forward on this issue. According to a survey, there are now 14.2% Muslims in India. While implementing a uniform civil code community opposes and the opposition has to receive heavy criticism from them. The impracticality of the situation lies a concern.  It is also an injustice towards them to impose the view, of the majority Hindu on them. A secular India is what the establisher pledge when they put together the Constitution and that is what the outnumbered is challenging for. The government must regard the spirituality of the minority inhabitants and protect them from infringement of their rights also while deciding on whether to keep a uniform civil code over the personal law or not.

In the leading discernment of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court describes the notion of Secularism i.e., 

“The Constitution has taken secularism as its vehicle to establish democratic and an unbiased social order. Secularism is part of the fundamental law and basic structure of the Indian political system.”

Infringement of personal religious laws:

The Muslim group actively conflicting the proceeding of the government, according to the UCC would infringe their laws extremely and it would result in inevitable damages to their faith, belief, divinity, and the laws in that respect.

A well-defended argument which goes in opposition to the application of the Uniform Civil Code is, the very idea of incorporating all the personal laws bring on a uniform code will contravene the component of personal laws of almost all the minority religion.

WHO ARE AGAINST UNIFORM CIVIL CODE?

Considering the framework beyond the UCC and the problems that arise is assure to resolve, those who are opposing the idea are voiced their disagreement with the said alteration, expressing that it is exceptionally unconstitutional and it fetches the religious and cultural rights of other minorities, which was undertaken to them by the establisher and creator of the constitution.

  • Naga Community

The Naga minority community is also apparently upset by the execution of UCC. The Nagaland Bar Association has remarkably notified that the execution of UCC would put forward an understandable problem for the custom, dignity, and culture of the Naga communities.

 In a letter they addressed to the Prime Minister of India affirmed that,

 “If a uniform civil code is implemented covering the whole county, it will cause a social disturbance, it shall cause so much of deprivation and social disturbance to the nagas community as the social, cultural, personal life of nagas is very different from rest of the country’s people.’’

  • Few Political Parties

It is very much practical that the other parties who are in the opposition are always against the rule which the governing political parties are favoring. Some are against the implementation of the Uniform Civil Code. These political parties are also in favor of minority groups saying that the UCC is a violation of their rights. They mainly strict to the issue that India is a country with diverse cultures and religions and it’s impossible to implement one code in all. 

The main fear stand with the Muslim communities at this point is that the implementation of uniform civil code is a fundamental conspiracy towards them to set aside their viewpoints and compulsorily imposes the Hindu Personal Laws on them and to whole the nation.

  • Muslim Community

The Muslim communities and the All-India Muslim personal law board both completely disagree with the law commission questionnaire on uniform civil code which they decided to boycott.

A statement was given by the general secretary Mr. Maulana Wali Rehman of All India Muslim Personal Law Board that, 

“Uniform Civil Code is isolating and will lead to social disturbance, and that It is hostile to the soul of the Constitution, which protect the right of citizens to exercise their culture, custom, and religion.”

As per the viewpoint of the minority group earlier as the union government take out a public vote on the matter of triple talaq and did not hold the opinion of the majority. That according to them, the issue is regarding the personal laws and especially with the Muslim personal laws. So that Muslims shall be allowed to take steps on the issue not the other and every religion and community.

WHAT ARE THE CONS OF UNIFORM CIVIL CODE?

  • Possible strain due to divergence in India

Uniform civil code proposes to replace the personal laws based on the customs of each religious community in the country with a customary set of rules governing every citizen. It is practically difficult to transpire with an ordinary and uniform set of rules for a personal matter like marriage due to massive cultural diversity in India covering the religions, castes, different states, sections of the society, etc.

  • The approach of the Uniform Civil Code a trespass on religious freedom

A massive number of communities, especially minority groups recognize uniform civil code as a trespass on their rights towards religious freedom. The fright that a common code will fail to look after their unwritten laws and inflict rules which are not in favor of them, which mainly recite and control by the majority communities.

  • The intervention of the state in personal matters

The constitution of India furnishes for the right to freedom of religion of one’s option. With the assortment of uniform rules and its obligation, but with the inference of state the reach of the freedom of religion will be lessened.

  • Diplomatic and tough task

Such a law, in its true soul, must be present by taking freely from various personal laws, making continuous changes in all, proceed with the judicial proclamation assuring gender equitability, and acquire exorbitant interpretations on marriage, adoption, succession, and maintenance by admitting the benefits that one group firm from the others communities. This action is very time-taking as well as require the wish of human. The government should be responsive and diplomatic at every step while administering with both the communities. Otherwise, the situation may come out more devastating and violent. 

THE DILEMMA BETWEEN GOOD AND BAD

It is a very conscientious question that is arisen by them. For the present government to wholly execute an achievable Uniform Civil Code, it is necessary to implement the code that is admissible to all the section of the society, but that is not a cup of tea, which is advised to leave to the imagination as it’s an inaccessible task to do. All the communities actively disagree any, however compact it may be, involvement with their laws and the plans of the government to wholly dismiss it.

The minority community elevates a very relevant question that what is the power of the government to set what laws are required to improve and what laws are custom-made within the framework of UCC.

Besides that; what laws government wants to release, must have given a justification for those laws, regulations shall not violate the basics of human rights and if this occurred then it must be abolished for proper administration.

The execution of UCC would make an effort to put forward the required changes and an end to plenty of uncertainties that are compulsorily needed, because of some drawbacks that put forward, it has become tough to apply it, however, decades have elapsed since it was present for the first time.

 CONCLUSION

The uniform civil code has been at the pinpoint of a legislative and political discussion for a very long and continues. India is a country where every religion i.e., Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Jainism, Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, etc. exists. Unity in diversity on which our country regulates. It has been the hallmark of India for a very long which shows the inner strength of the country. Nevertheless, the provisions of numerous personal laws i.e., the Hindu Marriage Act, the Indian Divorce Act, the Muslim Personal Law, the Indian Christian’s Marriage Act, the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, and the uncodified personal marriage laws of the Jews, etc., which vary extensively on the ground of their origin, philosophy, and implementation.

Articles

Has The Indian Federation Stood Up To The Demands For Which It Has Been Call Upon To Meet ? 

Leave a comment

This article is written by Synthia Das , a student of Amity University, Kolkata & Kanchan Ghosh, IP Analyst

INTRODUCTION

In India, federalism is described as an indestructible union of destructible states. Because it has incorporated the federal system within itself, this democracy is lavish in nature. The federal nature of the country aids in establishing a healthy relationship between the centre and the states, as well as pacing the country’s development and economic growth. Federalism is a coin in and of itself, and every coin has two sides. Cooperative federalism and competitive federalism are the two sides of federalism. They complement one another and walk hand in hand. Cooperative federalism is a concept that brings the federal government and the states together to fulfil their goals by resolving common challenges and launching new initiatives for the country’s growth.  And to stronger the bond of the center – state relation various instruments have been encapsulated in the constitution . They are – 7th Schedule , All India Services , Inter State Council , Full Faith and Credit Clause , Zonal Council . On the other hand Competitive federalism is a concept where the center competes with the states and the states compete with each other . Competitive federalism is mainly concerned about economic growth , commerce , investment and trade were the states compete with each other to attract more funds which initiates the growth of development activities . Thus federalism is a concept which creates a healthy relationship between center and the states and paces the development in the country . As cooperative federalism and competitive federalism are two sides of the same coin and thus a balance between these two is an essential factor for the growth and development of the country . The idea of “One shoe fits all”  was against cooperative federalism and thus led to the birth of new governing policy – NITI AYOG . Thus cooperative and competitive spirits play a crucial role in federalism .    

HISTORICAL ROOTS OF FEDERALISM

 Seeds of federalism can be traced right from The Regulating Act of 1773 , when the British Government supervised the work of East India Company but did not take any power itself . Then The Government of India Act ,1919 opted for a federal India however superficial in nature by indulging “Dyarchy ” the dual form of government . The Indian Statutary Commission of 1929 , suggested for dyarchy at the center and also to upgrade to full responsible government at provinces . The Government of India Act ,1935 also opted for this policy . The Cabinet Mission Plan , 1946 stated that Union of India should deal with foreign affairs , defence and communications . And all the other the subjects [ residuary powers ] excluding the union subjects were vested on the provinces . On 13th December , 1946 Jawaharlal Nehru while moving his Objectives of Resolution quoted that central level was to be considered in all power and authority of the sovereign Independent India, its constituents, and government organs are derived from the people

DEVELOPMENT IN FEDERALISM POST INDEPENDENCE

 The term “ Federalism ” though is not encrypted in the constitution but still the working of the whole government is directed on the path of federalism . The evolution which our country has faced in terms of political ideologies since post independence , the drastic change from centralist to federalist to central – federalist governments . The major shifts from left to right along with the major rise in the coalition governments , regional parties and the dynamic role of the judiciary has changed rather made the term federalism an essential ingredient for the working and development of the country .  The central-state relationship has taken on additional relevance as the prospect of external aggression persists. As a result, it is critical to do research into how the federation has responded to the demands that it has been asked to satisfy. What impact has planning and emergency preparedness had on India’s core federalism fabric? These are only a few of the many issues discussed below: 

Legislative relationship:  

The distribution of legislative jurisdiction between the centre, states, and constituent entities is a question that arises from legislative relationships. Many people wonder how the union list, state list, or concurrent list should be interpreted. One of the most frequently discussed rules is “Pith and Substance,” which has been the subject of numerous judicial pronouncements in which the scope of the rule has been narrowed and its application dependent on specific circumstances. The important supreme court decision regarding this being : Hingir-Rampur Coal co. vs State of Orissa, Calcutta Gas Co. vs State of West Bengal, Gujarat University vs  Shri Krishna.

Another key consideration is whether the balance of legislative authority between the federal government and the states has to be adjusted in light of the current issues, particularly those relating to planning. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the link between entry 11, List II, titled “Education,” and entry 66, list I, named “Coordination and setting of standards in institutions of higher education” is one example. According to the court, the central power under the former provision must triumph over the state power under the latter clause. Following this, the government established the sapru committee. In its 1964 report, the committee recommended that “education” be moved from the state list to the concurrent list. When the issue of providing social services to the people occurred in other federations of the world, a similar dilemma developed. When a consciousness for controlling economic activity evolved after the Great Depression of the 1930s, the challenge arose since power was not centralised but rather dispersed between the centre and the states. In the United States, the original challenges were gradually addressed, not so much through constitutional amendments as by inventive legislative methods and court tolerance of them. In Canada and Australia, judicial processes and constitutional amendments were used to address these issues. 

In Australia, for example, the central plan to give free medicines benefits to citizens was declared unconstitutional in the Pharmaceutical Benefits case. This prompted a constitutional amendment that gave parliament the authority to provide a variety of social services. Similar issues were addressed in Canada by a constitutional change in 1940 that allowed the federal government the right to provide unemployment insurance, and old age pensions were added to the list in 1950. Considerably, this is an issue that is equally essential in India. As a rough conclusion, it can be claimed that when the constitution was being drafted, the issue of planning was too much up in the air, therefore the powers were divided into three lists.

Now the question is whether they have stood the test of time, and whether the powers between the centre and the states need to be reshuffled further in light of the present pandemic situation. The current situation appears to be that large-scale nation-building efforts, either exclusively or concurrently, are under the jurisdiction of states. The constitution is written in such a way that most administrative functions are delegated to the states, and the administration is the weakest link in the current Indian federal system. In terms of state legislative matters, it accounts for a significant portion of planning unless the parliament imposes administrative power on the centre by making laws, administrative matters in the concurrent field are handled by the state. On the other hand, the constitution does provide for some form of administrative collaboration between the central government and the states.

According to Article 256, every state’s executive power is to be used to guarantee that the legislature’s laws are followed, and the union’s executive power includes issuing such instruction to a state as the government of India deems essential for that purpose.  Again under Article 258 (1) , the union executive has been given powers, with the consent of states government , to entrust to it’s officers, functions in relation to any matter to which executive power of union extends.  Conversely, a state government may confer power on the centre by entering into an agreement with it. There are examples of both. However, one area that frequently requires attention or investigation is the administrative pattern that develops between the centre and the states when the centre distributes grants to the states for specified goals. It’s anyone’s guess whether a web of administrative relationships between the centre and the states is forming in India around the focal point of various grants. The emergence of this orderly system is becoming increasingly important for the future of Indian federalism.

A thorough examination of the intergovernmental connection is required. In light of our rising planning and economic development, it is undeniably of national importance. Studies on the central-state interaction have been undertaken in the United States, Canada, and Australia on a regular basis. In 1955, the United States of America published a report on intergovernmental relations. The Rowell Siroeis Report was produced by the Royal Commission in Canada in 1939. In India, such research is necessary to identify the challenges and frictions in Indian Federalism and to devise solutions to the difficult task.