Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

All these arguments, except the purely inter- pretational, are ultimately founded upon the plea that the States have within their allotted field full attributes of sovereignty and exercise of authority by the Union agencies, legislative or executive, which trenches upon that sovereignty is void. Rc: (1) Ever since the assumption of authority by the British Crown under Statute 21- & 22, Vict .(1656) Ch. 106, the administration of British India was unitary and highly centralized. The GovernorGeneral was invested with autocratic powers to administer the entire territory. Even though the territory was divided into administrative units, the authority of the respective Governors of the Provinces was derived from the Governor-General and the Governor- General was responsible to the British Parliament. There was, therefore, a chain of responsibility-the Provincial Governments were subject to the control of the Central Government and the Central Government to the Secretary of State. Some process of Revolution took place under the Government of India Act, 1919, but that was only for the purpose of decentralization of the Governmental power but on that account the Government did not cease to be unitary. The aim of the Government of India Act, 1935 was to unite the Provinces and Indian States -into a federation, but that could be achieved only if a substantial number of the Indian States agreed to join the Provinces in the federation. For diverse reasons the Indian States never joined the proposed federation and the part dealing with federation never became effective. The Central Government as it was originally constituted under the Government of India Act, 1919, with some modification continued to function. But in the Provinces certain alterations were made. Certain departments were administered with the aid of Ministers, who were popularly elected, and who were in a sense responsible to the electorate. The Governor was still authorised to act in his discretion without consulting his Ministers in respect of certain matters. He derived his authority from the British Crown, and was subject to the directions which the Central Government gave to carry into execution Acts of' the Central Legislature in the Concurrent List and for the maintenance of means of communication, and in respect of all matters for preventing grave menace to the peace or tranquility of India or part thereof. The administration continued to function as an agent of the British Parliament. By the Indian Independence Act, 1947 a separate Dominion of India was carved out and by s. 6 thereof the Legislature was for the first time authorised to make laws for the Dominion. Such laws were not to be void or inoperative on the ground that they were repugnant to the law of England or to the provisions of any existing or future Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, or to any order, rule or regulation made under any such Act, and the powers of the Legislature of the Dominion included the power to repeal or amend any such Act, order, rule or regulation. The British Parliament ceased to have responsibility as respects governance of the territories which were immediately before that date included in British India, and suzerainty of the Crown over the Indian States lapsed and 'With it all treaties and agreements in force on the (late of the passing of the Act between the Crown and the rulers of Indian States. The bond of agency which bound the administration in India to function as agent of the Birtish Parliament was dissolved and the Indian Dominion to that extent became sovereign. Then came the Constitution. The territory was evidently too large for a democratic set-up with wholly centralized form of Government. Imposition of a centralized form might also have meant a reversal of political trends which had led to decentralization of the administration and some distribution of power. The Constitution had, therefore, to be in a form in which authority was decentralized. In the era immediately prior to the enactment of the Indian Independence Act, there were partially autonomous units such as the Provinces. There were Indian States which were in a sensesovereign but their sovereignty was extinguished bythe various merger agreements which the rulers ofthose States entered into with the Government of India before the Constitution. By virtue of the process of integration of the various States there emerged a Centralised form of administration in which the Governor General was the fountain head of executive authority. The Constitution of India was erected on the foundations of the Government of India Act, 1935 ; the basic structure was not altered in many important matters, and a large number of provisions were incorporated verbatim from the earlier Constitution.

within its assigned sphere over any conflicting assertion of "state" power; (6) dual citizenship." The aforesaid elements are no doubt present in the American Constitution, but it is not possible to contend that unless all the said criteria exist a constitution cannot be described as a federal one. Though on paper the American Constitution is a typical federation, in practice the Supreme Court of the United States of America by evolving and developing many legal doctrines and implied powers has invested the Federal Government with large powers to enable it to interfere indirectly in the States field. Even in regard to judicial power, though the American Supreme Court was originally conceived to be a Federal Court concerning itself with federal laws, in fact it authoritatively interprets the State laws when they come into conflict with federal laws. The point is that even in America there is no federation in the orthodox sense of the term. So too, the Constitution of Australia clearly demarcates the exclusive fields of the Commonwealth and the States and jealously guards the State rights, but in practice the States have been reduced to the position of agencies of the Commonwealth Government. This was brought about because of the financial grip the Centre has over the State : 'see Wheare on "'Federal Government."

But in Canada the position is the reverse. Though the Centre and the Provinces have their distinctive Lists of powers, the Central Government has certain limited powers of control over the governments of the ten Provinces of Canada; the residuary powers are given to the Centre and not to the States. Though undoubtedly some elements of unitary form of government are present, the constitutional custom evolved practically a federal State and, as one author puts it, "no dominion government which attempts to stress the unitary elements in the Constitution at the expense of the federal elements would survive." It is, therefore, clear that in every federal Constitution there are either textually or customarily some unitary elements. The real test to ascertain whether a particular Constitution has accepted the federal principle or not is whether the said Constitution provides for the division of powers in such a way that the general and regional governments are each within its sphere substantially independent of the other. The reservation of the residue of power or the power to interfere with States' affairs in emergencies in the Union may affect the balance of power in a federation, but does not destroy its character. Some Constitutions show a marked bias towards the Federation and the others towards the States, but notwithstanding the varying emphasis they accept the federal principle as their basis. Though some authors, accepting the American Constitution as the yardstick for a federation, prefer to describe Constitutions with a bias towards Union as quasi-federations, I do not think it is inappropriate to describe all Constitutions which substantially accept the federal principle as Federations. Applying this test, I have no doubt that the Indian Constitution is a federation, as the units in normal times exercise exclusive sovereign powers within the fields allotted to them. A further distinction is sought to be made between the American Constitution and the Indian Constitution on the basis of the historical evolution of the two countries. While in America, the argument proceeds, the pre-existing sovereign States were brought together under a federation, in India the Constitution conferred certain powers on the existing administrative units or such units newly constituted. The status of a political entity Under a particular constitution does not depend upon its history but upon the provisions of the constitution. The pre-existing independent States may not be given any appreciable power under a constitution, while newly formed States may enjoy larger power under another constitution. A federal structure is mainly conceived to harmonize existing conflicting interests and to provide against future conflicts. India is a vast country: indeed, it is described as a sub-continent. Historically, before the advent of the Constitution, there were different Provinces enjoying in practice a fair amount of autonomy and there were innumerable States with varying forms of government ranging from pure autocracy to guided democracy. There were also differences in language, race, religion etc. There were also foreign pockets expected sooner or later to be incorporated, with the main country. In those circumstances our Constitution adopted a federal structure with a strong bias towards the Centre. Under such a structure, while the Centre remains strong to prevent the development of fissiparous tendencies, the States are made practically autonomous in ordinary times within the spheres allotted to them.

Broadly, cls. (1) and (2) of s. 299 of the said Act correspond respectively to cls. (1) and (2) of Art. 31 of the Constitution, under the said Act, the Federal Legislature could not make a law acquiring the land of a Province for the simple reason that the subject of acquisition of land was exclusively a Provincial subject. But s. 127 provided for the contingency of the Federation requiring the land belonging to a Province. The section read :

"The Federation may, if it deems it necessary to acquire any land situate in a Province for any purpose connected with a matter with respect to which the Federal Legislature has power to make laws, require the Province to acquire the land on behalf and at the expense, of the Federation or, if the land belongs to the Province, to transfer it to the Federation on such terms as may be agreed or, in default of agreement, as may be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Chief Justice of India."