Subject: GS 2
Syllabus:
- Functions and responsibilities of the Union and the States, issues and challenges pertaining to the federal structure, devolution of powers and finances up to local levels and challenges therein.
- Separation of powers between various organs dispute redressal mechanisms and institutions.
Questions
- Indian constitution defines India to be a Union of States. But federalism is a part of the basic structure of the constitution. Comment. Also discuss the challenges to this federal structure. (150 Words, 10 Marks)
- How does the principle of separation of powers in the Constitution of India differ from the rigid separation of powers in the Constitution of the United States of America? Provide illustrations to support your explanation. (250 Words, 15 Marks)
Model Structure
1. Indian constitution defines India to be a Union of States. But federalism is a part of the basic structure of the constitution. Comment. Also discuss the challenges to this federal structure. (150 Words, 10 Marks)
Model Structure
Introduction
- Federal structure of polity means decentralization and division of power between the center and states. Federal system in India is a quasi-federal type with features of both federation and union.
Main Body
- Many important leaders in constituent assembly called for a unitary structure due to challenges and social diversity prevailing at that time. But the federal structure of power distribution was opted to give voice to regional aspirations.
Federal features of Indian constitution
- Dispersion of powers between the center and the unit states forming a federation among a number of coordinate bodies, controlled by constitution.
- Rigidity – neither the center nor the state has power to amend the provision of the constitution relating to separation of powers.
- A written constitution
- Domination of the constitution – neither of center or state have power to nullify the constitution
- An independent body and unprejudiced authority (Eg. Judiciary)
Challenges to the Indian Federal structure
- Centralized planning by organs like Planning Commission, National Development Council and other such organs make states dependent on the center for finance and at times arm twisting for getting such funds.
- Regionalism is acceptable to a certain limit when it helps in the progress of a region. But an extreme form of regionalism can manifest in demand of autonomy which can take violent forms and affect internal security.
- Single citizenship goes against the identity of a citizen as a member of a particular state and creates a rift in their mind sowing the seeds of discontent.
- The office of governor is vested with all executive powers of the state. Also, the imposition of constitutional emergency can be recommended by this office. There have been instances where this emergency was imposed unconstitutionally and was revoked on the orders of the Supreme court.
- Supremacy of constitution with centralized amending powers and states having almost nil voice in this exercise makes the structure more unitary and less federal.
- Indestructible union of destructible states means that the center can create new states but states do not have a right to secede from the Indian union.
Conclusion
- Federalism is a part of the basic structure of the constitution and steps need to be taken to ensure that this is not violated. Due deliberations and taking all states on board is a way ahead before framing any law which has an impact on states as a whole.
2. How does the principle of separation of powers in the Constitution of India differ from the rigid separation of powers in the Constitution of the United States of America? Provide illustrations to support your explanation. (250 Words, 15 Marks)
Introduction
- The separation of powers is a fundamental principle underlying the design of political systems. Both the Constitution of India and the United States Constitution include elements of this principle but implement it in unique ways.
- There is an old adage containing a lot of truth that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. To evolve effective control mechanisms, the man had been looking for devices to contain the forces of tyranny and authoritarianism. “Separation of Powers” was conceived to be one such device. (Quote-based)
Main Body1. Distinction in the nature of separation:
- The U.S. The Constitution has a rigid separation of powers, with clear delineations between the branches of government - the executive (President), legislative (Congress), and judiciary (Supreme Court).
- The Indian Constitution endorses a flexible separation of powers, where overlap between branches is permitted, leading to a fusion of powers. (For e.g. The council of ministers, part of the executive, are members of the legislature and are collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha.)
2. Role of Judiciary:
- The U.S. judiciary is constitutionally granted the power of judicial review explicitly. It stands as a separate and independent entity.
- In India, the Constitution does not explicitly provide for judicial review. However, it has been accepted as a part of the basic structure of the Constitution, as per the Supreme Court's interpretation. (Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973)]
3. Checks and Balances:
- The U.S. Constitution puts in place a system of checks and balances through which each branch of government has some measure of influence over the other branches.
- For instance, the President has veto powers over Congress but Congress can override this veto by a two-thirds majority vote.
- In contrast, the Indian Constitution envisages a system of checks and balances but it leans towards parliamentary supremacy.
- As per Article 111, the President of India has the power to return a bill (except a money bill) for reconsideration. However, if the Parliament sends the bill again, the President has to give his assent, showing the dominance of Parliament.
4. Parliamentary vs Presidential System:
- The U.S. adopts the Presidential form of government, meaning a clearer separation between the legislative and executive branches.
- On the contrary, India follows a Parliamentary form of government, which involves a certain fusion of legislative and executive powers.
Conclusion
- While both the Indian and U.S. Constitutions embrace the principle of separation of powers, the U.S. Constitution enforces a more rigid separation between different branches of government, whereas the Indian Constitution adopts a more flexible approach, primarily due to its adoption of a Parliamentary system.
- This difference, however, does not undermine the commitment of both systems to democratic governance and rule.
Courses by UPSCprep.com
A comprehensive range of courses meticulously designed to help you cover the syllabus in phases, without overwhelming you with long classes, ensuring you have ample time for self-study.