The 130th Amendment Bill has revived critical questions about India’s federal structure. It proposes automatic removal of ministers, including Chief Ministers and the Prime Minister, if held in custody for 30 days for serious offences. While aimed at cleansing politics of criminal elements, the amendment exposes a deep imbalance in India’s constitutional federalism. The procedure to enact it marks the dominance of the Centre over states.
Constitutional Amendment Process and Federalism
Article 368 governs constitutional amendments. Most changes need a special majority in Parliament. Certain ‘entrenched’ provisions require both a special majority and ratification by at least half of the state legislatures. These provisions protect the federal balance. However, Article 164, which deals with ministers’ appointment and tenure in states, is not ‘entrenched’. This allows Parliament to amend it without state consent, risking state autonomy.
Impact on State Autonomy
The amendment could let the Centre remove elected state ministers or Chief Ministers through law enforcement action. This threatens the independence of state governments. It creates a mechanism for possible political destabilisation by the Centre. Since states have no formal role in such amendments, their democratic mandate is undermined. This raises questions about the true nature of India’s federalism.
Historical Context of India’s Federal Design
The Constituent Assembly initially considered a more federal system. The Muslim League’s participation had influenced this vision. After its withdrawal and Partition, the focus shifted to a strong, unified nation. The Constitution thus favoured a unitary system with federal features subordinate to the Centre. Article 368 was discussed briefly, indicating less concern for a balanced amending process. The federal structure was always ‘quasi-federal’, leaning towards central authority.
Judiciary and Federalism’s Basic Structure
The Supreme Court has declared federalism part of the Constitution’s ‘basic structure’. This limits Parliament’s power to alter federal features. The judiciary acts as a check on unilateral amendments. However, relying on courts alone is risky. Federal balance is a political issue needing dialogue and consensus. Courts can invalidate laws but cannot redesign the federal framework.
Democratic Implications and Future Directions
The amendment challenges the principle that elected state governments represent the people’s will. Bypassing state legislatures in constitutional changes weakens democracy. For India’s federalism to mature, states must have a meaningful role in constitutional amendments. Expanding the list of entrenched provisions to include state executive and legislative powers could protect federalism. Empowering states to initiate amendments can encourage a true partnership between Centre and states.
Questions for UPSC:
- Critically analyse the role of Article 368 in maintaining India’s federal structure with suitable examples.
- Explain the significance of the ‘basic structure’ doctrine in protecting federalism in India and its limitations.
- What are the challenges faced by federal democracies in balancing central authority and state autonomy? Illustrate with examples from India and other countries.
- Comment on the importance of political consensus in constitutional amendments and how it affects democratic governance in India.
