Federalism in India: why the Centre is stronger by design

India is a federation that refuses to call itself one. The Constitution never uses the word federal, describes India as a Union of States, and then hands the Centre powers that would make most federal governments envious. This was not an accident or a drafting error. It was a deliberate choice by people who had just watched a subcontinent tear itself apart. This article explains why the Centre is stronger by design, where the states still hold real power, and how the 2025 headlines keep testing the balance.

Key takeaways

- The Constitution never uses the word 'federal'. Article 1 describes India as a 'Union of States', and K.C. Wheare famously called the arrangement quasi-federal.

- The unitary tilt is structural: Parliament can redraw state boundaries under Article 3, and the design includes single citizenship, an integrated judiciary and All-India Services.

- The Seventh Schedule divides subjects into the Union List (about 100 entries), the State List (about 61) and the Concurrent List (about 52), with residuary powers resting with the Union.

- Fiscal federalism runs through the Finance Commission (Article 280) and, since the 101st Amendment of 2016, the GST Council (Article 279A).

Holding together, not coming together

Federations come in two varieties. In coming-together federations like the United States, sovereign states agree to unite and keep substantial autonomy. In holding-together federations like India, a large diverse country decides to stay together by devolving power downward, and the Centre keeps the upper hand. The framers modelled India on Canada, not America, because India was formed by the disintegration of British India, not by a contract among states.

Article 1 says India shall be a Union of States, and Ambedkar explained the choice: the Union was not the result of an agreement among states, no state can secede, and the Union is indestructible even though state boundaries are not. In S.R. Bommai (1994) the Supreme Court held that federalism is part of the basic structure, so the federal character cannot be amended away, but within that character the Centre is decisively stronger.

The federal features

India does have the classic federal equipment: a written and largely rigid Constitution, a division of powers between the Union and the states, an independent Supreme Court to arbitrate their disputes, a Rajya Sabha that represents the states, and dual government, with the Union handling defence, foreign affairs and currency while states handle police, health and agriculture. The Constitution is supreme, and courts can strike down laws that violate the division of powers.

The unitary tilt: where the Centre wins

Against that, the list of central advantages is long:

• Parliament can legislate on State List subjects in the national interest on a Rajya Sabha resolution (Article 249), at the request of two or more states (Article 252), to implement international treaties (Article 253), or during a national emergency.
• Parliament alone can redraw state boundaries, rename states and create new ones under Article 3, without the affected state's consent.
• Residuary powers, including residuary taxation, belong to Parliament under Article 248.
• During emergencies the federal structure converts to a unitary one without any constitutional amendment.
• There is a single citizenship, a single integrated judiciary, single all-India services, and a single audit machinery.
• The Governor, appointed by the Centre, can reserve state bills for the President's consideration (Articles 200 and 201), and the President can veto them.
• Most constitutional amendments need only Parliament; states cannot initiate amendments.

The Seventh Schedule: who legislates on what

The division of subjects runs through three lists:

Money and administration

Financial relations are tilted too. The Finance Commission, constituted by the President every five years under Article 280, recommends how Union tax revenues are shared; the 15th Finance Commission (2021-26) fixed the states' share of the net proceeds of Union taxes at 41 percent, and the 16th, chaired by Arvind Panagariya, was constituted at the end of 2023. Only Parliament can levy a surcharge, and it keeps the whole of it. States borrow only within India and need the Centre's consent if they owe it money.

Administratively, Article 256 obliges states to comply with parliamentary laws and lets the Centre issue directions; defiance can trigger President's Rule under Article 365. The All-India Services, created by Parliament on a Rajya Sabha resolution under Article 312, give the Centre officers posted in every state. Article 355 makes it the Centre's duty to protect states against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that every state government runs according to the Constitution.

The institutions that manage the friction

The Constitution provides safety valves. Article 263 allows the President to establish an Inter-State Council for matters of common interest; one was set up in 1990 on the Sarkaria Commission's recommendation, with a secretariat and a standing committee under the Home Minister. Article 262 lets Parliament legislate on inter-state river disputes and even exclude the courts; the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 creates tribunals with exclusive jurisdiction, which is why the Cauvery, Krishna and Mahanadi disputes travel through tribunals rather than ordinary courts. Two expert commissions have reviewed the whole relationship: Sarkaria (1983), which wanted a permanent inter-governmental council and an eminent, apolitical Governor; and Punchhi (2007-10), which wanted the Centre to legislate on Concurrent subjects only in the essential national interest and a fixed tenure for Governors.

2025: the balance under stress

Recent headlines show federalism is a live argument, not a settled chapter. Tamil Nadu's clash with the Centre over the three-language formula of the National Education Policy 2020 revived the language-federalism debate; Tamil Nadu has followed a two-language policy of Tamil and English since 1968. The Supreme Court ruled that the CBI does not need a state's consent to register cases against central government employees posted in that state, a judgment with sharp edges since several states have withdrawn general consent to the CBI. In 2025 Punjab objected when the Bhakra Beas Management Board raised Haryana's water release, and the long-running Sutlej-Yamuna Link canal dispute returned to the headlines. And Tamil Nadu's 2025-26 budget replaced the rupee symbol with the Tamil letter for roobai, a symbolic assertion of linguistic federalism. Each episode tests the same question the framers debated: how much unity does diversity need, and who decides?

Rajamannar (1969): the first state-level review

The Rajamannar Committee (1969) was the Centre-State relations inquiry set up by Tamil Nadu under P.V. Rajamannar, a former Chief Justice of the Madras High Court. It recommended curtailing the misuse of Article 356, abolishing the all-India services, transferring residuary subjects to the states, and ending the Planning Commission's discretionary grants. It was the first systematic state-level articulation of the autonomy demand, predating the Sarkaria Commission (1983) and the Punchhi Commission (2007) by decades.

Two federalisms: India and the United States

Federalism is not one design. India and the United States both call themselves federal, but they built the union from opposite ends, and the difference shows up in every exam question on the subject.

The exam shorthand is worth memorising: India is an indestructible Union of destructible states, the United States an indestructible union of indestructible states. Everything in the table above flows from that one line.

Redrawing the map: how India reorganises its states

Article 3 is the Constitution's redraw tool: Parliament may form a new state, increase or diminish any state's area, alter its boundaries or change its name. The President must recommend the bill and the affected state's legislature gets to state its views, but Parliament is not bound by them, and the whole exercise needs only a simple majority, which is why reorganisation is far easier in India than in most federations.

The first decade argued over language. The Linguistic Provinces Commission (Dhar Commission, 1948) and the JVP Committee (1949) resisted linguistic states, but the death of Potti Sriramulu after his fast for a Telugu-speaking state forced the Centre's hand: Andhra State was carved out in 1953, and the States Reorganisation Commission (Fazl Ali Commission, 1953) then recommended redrawing the map broadly on linguistic lines. The States Reorganisation Act, 1956 created 14 states and 6 Union Territories, and the linguistic principle has guided every redraw since.

Later milestones kept the same tool at work: Bombay split into Maharashtra and Gujarat (1960), Punjab into Punjab and Haryana (1966), the northeast reorganisation of the early 1970s, the trio of Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand and Jharkhand (2000), and Telangana (2014). The Jammu and Kashmir story, the most contested use of Article 3, is told in full in the article on Jammu and Kashmir.

Prelims hooks

• India is a holding-together federation modelled on Canada; Article 1 describes it as a Union of States, and states have no right to secede.
• Federalism is part of the basic structure (S.R. Bommai, 1994).
• Seventh Schedule: Union List 98 subjects, State List 59, Concurrent List 52; residuary powers with Parliament under Article 248.
• Parliament can legislate on State subjects under Articles 249 (Rajya Sabha resolution), 252 (two or more states request), 253 (treaties) and during a national emergency.
• Article 3 lets Parliament redraw state boundaries without the state's consent.
• Finance Commission: Article 280, every five years; 15th FC fixed states' share at 41 percent of net Union tax proceeds; 16th FC chaired by Arvind Panagariya.
• GST is the only tax entry in the Concurrent List (101st Amendment, 2016); surcharges belong entirely to the Centre.
• Inter-State Council: Article 263, set up 1990 on Sarkaria's recommendation; inter-state water disputes go to tribunals under the 1956 Act, excluding the Supreme Court's jurisdiction (Article 262).
• Sarkaria Commission (1983) and Punchhi Commission (2007-10) reviewed Centre-state relations.
• Article 312: All-India Services created by Parliament on a Rajya Sabha resolution.

Mains angle

Federalism questions reward a structured argument rather than a list. Open with the design thesis: the framers chose a strong Centre because Partition had shown what weak central authority costs, and because economic planning and national integration needed central direction. Then show the constitutional mechanisms of central dominance: the Seventh Schedule's residuary rule, Article 3, the emergency provisions, financial centralisation, and the Governor's office.

The second half should show the counterweights: the basic structure ruling in Bommai, the Finance Commission, the GST Council's shared decision-making, judicial review of Article 356 after Bommai, and the political reality of coalition-era bargaining. Apply this to a current issue, such as the language policy clash or the CBI consent controversy, and argue that Indian federalism is best understood not as a fixed division but as a continuous negotiation, with the Constitution providing the table, the rules and, through the courts, the referee. Conclude with the Punchhi Commission's counsel: the Centre should legislate on Concurrent subjects only in the essential national interest.

Key Terms

• Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956: The Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, enacted under Article 262, empowers the Centre to set up tribunals to adjudicate disputes between states over interstate rivers. It matters for UPSC as a recurring test of cooperative federalism, visible in the Cauvery and Krishna disputes, and in proposals for a single permanent tribunal through the Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill. The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal's final award allocating shares among the riparian states.
• The Rajamannar Committee (1969) was: The Rajamannar Committee (1969) was the three-member panel appointed by the Tamil Nadu government under P. V. Rajamannar to examine Centre-State relations and recommend constitutional changes for greater state autonomy. Reporting in 1971, it called for an Inter-State Council, a permanent Finance Commission, the abolition of Articles 356 and the All-India Services, and residuary powers for states. It matters for UPSC as the first state-level federalism review and a GS-2 mains staple on Centre-State relations. the 1971 report calling for an Inter-State Council and a permanent Finance Commission
• 15th Finance Commission (2021-26: The 15th Finance Commission, chaired by N.K. Singh, made recommendations for 2021-22 to 2025-26 under Article 280. It kept the states' vertical share of the divisible pool at 41 percent, one point below the 14th Commission's 42 percent, to fund the new Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Horizontal distribution weighted income distance at 45 percent, with population, area, forest and ecology, demographic performance and tax effort making up the rest. It is UPSC's benchmark fiscal-federalism award. Uttar Pradesh received the largest share of tax devolution among the states.
• National Education Policy 2020: The National Education Policy 2020 is India's first education policy of the 21st century, approved by the Union Cabinet on 29 July 2020, replacing the 1986 policy. It introduces the 5+3+3+4 school structure, mother-tongue instruction till Class 5, multidisciplinary higher education with multiple entry-exit, and a target of 100% gross enrolment by 2030. It matters for UPSC because education reforms, GER targets, and social-sector policy are central GS-2 topics. Approved by the Union Cabinet on 29 July 2020
• Bhakra Beas Management Board: The Bhakra Beas Management Board is a statutory body constituted under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 to administer the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas projects. It regulates the distribution of water and power from these projects among the partner states of Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Delhi and Chandigarh. It surfaces frequently during inter-state water disputes and illustrates cooperative federalism in river-water management. The Board releases water from the Bhakra and Pong reservoirs according to each state's allocated share.
• Articles 355 and 356: Articles 355 and 356 deal with the Union's role during state crises. Article 355 makes it the Union's duty to protect states against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure governments run per the Constitution. Article 356 allows President's Rule when a state's constitutional machinery fails, on the Governor's report or otherwise. Together they are the Constitution's emergency toolkit for states. President's Rule has been imposed multiple times on a Governor's report of constitutional breakdown
• Sutlej-Yamuna Link canal: The Sutlej-Yamuna Link canal is the incomplete 214-km canal meant to carry Ravi and Beas waters from Punjab to Haryana under the 1981 water-sharing agreement. Punjab's 2004 law terminating the agreement was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2016, yet construction remains stalled amid state resistance. It exemplifies inter-state water disputes and federal tensions. Example: the Supreme Court's 2016 verdict against Punjab's termination law. the Supreme Court's 2016 verdict against Punjab's termination law
• Union of States: Union of States is the description of India in Article 1 of the Constitution: India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States. B. R. Ambedkar explained that the Indian federation is a Union because it was not created by an agreement among states and no state has a right to secede. For UPSC, the phrase is the classic mains distinction between the Indian Union and the American federation. Article 1
• holding-together federations: Holding-together federations are federations created when a large, diverse country chooses to devolve power to its regions, rather than sovereign units deciding to come together. The term comes from political scientist Alfred Stepan and covers India, Spain and Belgium: the Constitution is framed centrally and autonomy is granted top-down, so the Centre typically retains superior power. The concept explains India's unitary tilt and why its federalism differs structurally from the coming-together model of the USA or Switzerland. India, Spain and Belgium in Alfred Stepan's classification of federations.
• coming-together federations: Coming-together federations are federations formed when previously independent states voluntarily unite, pooling sovereignty for common purposes, with the United States as the classic example. Constitutional scholar K.C. Wheare’s classification contrasts them with holding-together federations like India, where a large polity devolves power to units while retaining a strong centre. UPSC uses the distinction to explain why Indian federalism leans centralised compared to the American model. The thirteen American colonies came together as sovereign states to form the United States under the 1787 Constitution.
• Inter-State Council: The Inter-State Council is the constitutional body under Article 263 that advises on Centre-state relations, set up in 1990 on the Sarkaria Commission's recommendation. Chaired by the Prime Minister, it includes all chief ministers, Union territory administrators and six Union ministers, and discusses subjects of common interest like internal security and economic planning. It matters for UPSC federalism answers as the premier forum for cooperative federalism. The Council's 11th meeting in July 2016, which took up the Punchhi Commission's recommendations on Centre-state relations
• Sarkaria Commission: The Sarkaria Commission (1983-88), chaired by Justice R.S. Sarkaria, comprehensively reviewed Centre-State relations and submitted 247 recommendations. It favoured a strong Centre with cooperative federalism, restrained use of Article 356, and consultation with Chief Ministers on Governor appointments. Later commissions, including Punchhi, built on its framework. For UPSC, it is the foundational text of Indian federalism. Example: the Supreme Court's Bommai judgment echoes its Article 356 safeguards. It recommended the Inter-State Council be made a permanent constitutional forum.

Practice questions

What political scientists called Indian federalism

Scholars have never agreed on a single label for the Indian federation, and the exam loves asking who said what. Beyond K.C. Wheare's famous quasi-federal description, each of these labels is a definition you should be able to complete: the name, the label, and the logic behind it.

• Paul Appleby: called the Indian system extremely federal, pointing to the sheer scale of governmental activity at the state level despite the Centre's formal supremacy.
• Morris Jones: described it as bargaining federalism, where the Centre and the states negotiate continuously instead of operating in sealed compartments.
• Ivor Jennings: saw a federation with a strong centralising tendency, noting the Constitution's unique safeguards for national unity and growth.
• Alexandrowicz: called India a case sui generis, one of its own kind, arguing that no imported federal model quite fits it.
• Granville Austin: named it cooperative federalism, a new kind of federation deliberately tailored to India's specific needs.
• K. Santhanam: stressed the system's unitary bias, driven above all by the Centre's financial dominance over the states.
• B.R. Ambedkar: insisted the federation is indestructible and not the result of an agreement; the states have no right to secede because the Union was never formed by a compact among them.