Supreme Court Ruling Challenges Indian Federalism Structure

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a landmark judgment on the powers of Governors and the President under the Constitution. This ruling has sparked intense debate about the erosion of federalism in India. The decision impacts the balance between the Union and State governments, raising concerns over the autonomy of States and democratic governance.

Context of the Supreme Court Judgment

The Court responded to the 16th Presidential reference concerning the discretionary powers of Governors and the President. It upheld wide, undefined powers for Governors, allowing them to delay or withhold assent to State legislation indefinitely. This interpretation weakens the federal principle by empowering unelected Governors to override elected State Assemblies, potentially reducing States to mere extensions of the Union government.

Federalism in the Constitution of India

India’s Constitution enshrines federalism as a core principle. The Union and States are equal partners, with the Union being ‘first among equals’. States have autonomy over subjects in the State list, such as land and law and order. This balance ensures decentralised governance and respects regional diversity. Any shift that diminishes State powers threatens the federal framework.

Role and Powers of Governors

Governors are appointed by the Centre but are expected to act impartially. The judgment allows Governors to keep State bills pending for indefinite periods, seek reconsideration, or reserve them for Presidential assent. This effectively grants Governors a ‘pocket veto’ over State legislation, undermining the mandate of elected governments and violating democratic principles.

Implications for Democracy and Governance

The ruling risks converting States into shadow Union Territories. Unelected Governors may act according to the political agenda of the ruling party at the Centre. This creates a conflict between democratic will and administrative power. It also encourages litigation and political instability, as States struggle to enact laws without interference.

Judicial Review and Constitutional Safeguards

Judicial review is a fundamental feature of the Constitution. No authority, including Parliament, the President, or Governors, is above scrutiny. The judgment’s notion of ‘limited direction’ contradicts this principle by shielding Governors’ decisions from timely judicial oversight. This weakens the checks and balances essential for constitutional governance.

Recent Trends Undermining Federalism

The judgment fits into a broader pattern of centralisation. Examples include refusal to compensate States for Goods and Services Tax losses, withholding cess revenue, partial implementation of Finance Commission recommendations, and imposing conditionalities on central schemes. Political use of financial incentives and investigative agencies against Opposition-ruled States further strain federal relations.

Consequences for the Future of Indian Federalism

If unchecked, these developments may lead to a highly centralised system with reduced State autonomy. This could erode democratic diversity and weaken governance. The balance of power envisaged by the Constitution risks collapse, threatening India’s unity and democratic fabric.

Questions for UPSC:

1. Discuss in the light of Indian federalism the constitutional role of Governors and the challenges posed by their discretionary powers.
2. Critically examine the impact of central financial policies on the autonomy of States in India with suitable examples.
3. Explain the doctrine of judicial review and its significance in maintaining the balance of power between the Union and State governments in India.
4. With suitable examples, discuss the political and administrative implications of centralisation on Indian democracy and federalism.

Answer Hints:

1. Discuss in the light of Indian federalism the constitutional role of Governors and the challenges posed by their discretionary powers.

1. Governors are appointed by the President (Centre) to act as constitutional heads of States.
2. They have discretionary powers like reserving bills for Presidential assent, returning bills for reconsideration, and delaying assent under Article 200.
3. These powers can be used to override elected State Legislatures, undermining federal autonomy and democratic mandate.
4. The Supreme Court ruling upholding wide, undefined discretionary powers risks Governors acting as agents of the Centre, eroding federal balance.
5. Timelines for Governor’s assent are absent, allowing indefinite delays and ‘pocket vetoes’ on State laws.
6. Conflict arises between unelected Governors’ powers and the elected State government’s mandate, threatening the principle of ‘equal partnership’ in federalism.

2. Critically examine the impact of central financial policies on the autonomy of States in India with suitable examples.

1. Central refusal to compensate States for GST revenue losses disincentivizes State revenue efforts and governance.
2. Cesses collected exclusively by the Centre reduce the revenue share available to States, constraining their fiscal autonomy.
3. Partial and delayed implementation of Finance Commission recommendations weakens State finances.
4. Conditionalities on central schemes, requiring States to contribute up to 50%, strain already stressed State budgets.
5. Financial incentives are often politicized, e.g., targeted transfers before elections (Bihar women’s ₹10,000 transfer) or special packages (Andhra Pradesh).
6. Such policies increase States’ dependence on the Centre, undermining federal fiscal independence and autonomy.

3. Explain the doctrine of judicial review and its significance in maintaining the balance of power between the Union and State governments in India.

1. Judicial review allows courts to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions.
2. It ensures no authority, including Parliament, President, or Governors, is above constitutional scrutiny.
3. Judicial review preserves federal balance by checking arbitrary or unconstitutional exercises of power by Centre or States.
4. The Supreme Court’s principle protects fundamental rights and the basic structure, including federalism.
5. Shielding Governors’ discretionary powers from timely judicial review weakens constitutional safeguards and promotes arbitrariness.
6. Judicial review acts as a critical check to prevent erosion of State autonomy and uphold democratic governance.

4. With suitable examples, discuss the political and administrative implications of centralisation on Indian democracy and federalism.

1. Centralisation reduces States to administrative outposts, weakening their legislative and executive autonomy.
2. Political use of investigative agencies (CBI, ED, IT Dept) to target Opposition-led States undermines democratic pluralism.
3. Financial control via conditional grants and selective funding promotes political patronage and undermines cooperative federalism.
4. Governors acting under Centre’s influence disrupt State governance, leading to political instability and litigation.
5. Examples – Bihar’s pre-election cash transfers, Andhra Pradesh’s special budget package, and refusal to share cess revenues.
6. Such centralisation threatens democratic diversity, federal balance, and the constitutional vision of India as a union of equal States.