The Judiciary Notes | Class 11 Political Science
These Class 11 Political Science notes cover the chapter on federalism: how India shares power between a strong Central government and the states, what the Constitution actually says about the division of powers, and why an independent judiciary matters. The judiciary is the umpire of our federal system. It settles centre-state and inter-state disputes on legal questions, from river water rows to the powers of a Governor. Along the way we look at real fault lines such as the revocation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir.
What was the major reason for the breakup of the erstwhile USSR?
One of the primary reasons for its disintegration was Russia's excessive centralisation and concentration of authority, as well as its dominance over other regions that had their own unique languages and cultures.
The USSR was not alone. Other countries such as Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Pakistan also faced division. Even Canada faces separatism between the English speaking and the French speaking regions of that country.
How has India remained united despite its partition and diversity?
Despite India's cultural and linguistic diversity, it shares a common history of resistance to the British Raj. This prompted our national leaders to imagine India as a country defined by its diversity yet held together by it. This idea is often called unity in diversity.
Apart from framing a federal constitution, the structure of the federal system and the way it works in practice have contributed a great deal to India's unity.
Federalism in the West Indies
The Federation of the West Indies was founded in 1958. It had a weak central authority and each unit's economy was self sufficient. These features, combined with political struggle among the units, led to the formal disintegration of the federation in 1962.
Later, in 1973, under the terms of the Treaty of Chaguaramas, the independent islands pooled some powers in the form of a common legislature, a supreme court, a common currency and, to a limited extent, a common market known as the Caribbean Community.
The Caribbean Community even has a common executive, which is made up of the heads of government of member countries. So the units cannot live together as a single country, and they cannot fully live apart either.
What is Federalism?
Federalism is the mode of political organisation that unites separate states or other units within one larger political system, in a way that allows each to keep its own identity. Federalism as a principle of government has grown differently in different situations.
- Federalism is an institutional way to hold together two sets of politics, one at the regional level and the other at the national level.
- Each government is autonomous in its own sphere. In some federal countries there is even a system of dual citizenship. India has only single citizenship.
- The people likewise have two sets of identities and loyalties. They belong to the region as well as to the nation. For example, we are Gujaratis or Jharkhandis as well as Indians.
Each level of the polity has its own powers and responsibilities and its own system of government. The details of this dual system of government are usually spelt out in a written constitution.
Certain subjects that concern the nation as a whole, like defence or currency, are the responsibility of the Union or Central government. Regional or local matters are the responsibility of the regional or State government. To prevent conflicts between the Centre and the State, there is an independent judiciary to settle disputes. The judiciary has the power to resolve disputes between the Central government and the states on legal questions about the division of power.
What factors help in the smooth functioning of Federalism?
The working of a federation is shaped by its politics, culture, ideology and history. Federations run more smoothly when they have a culture of trust, cooperation, mutual respect and restraint.
Political parties also influence how a constitution works in practice. If a single unit, state, language group or philosophy begins to dominate the federation as a whole, it can breed real resentment among the people or units that do not share the dominant voice. Such conditions may lead aggrieved units to demand secession, or even to civil war.
Failure of Federalism in Nigeria
Federalism in Nigeria
Nigeria is an instructive example where a federal arrangement failed to produce a stable state.
Northern and Southern Nigeria were two separate British possessions until 1914. Nigerian leaders decided to create a federal constitution at the 1950 Ibadan Constitutional Conference. The three largest ethnic groups of Nigeria, the Yoruba, the Ibo and the Hausa-Fulani, governed the western, eastern and northern regions respectively.
Their desire to expand their power into other regions sowed fear and sparked conflict. These events led to the setting up of a military administration.
According to the 1960 constitution, the Nigerian police were jointly run by the federal and regional administrations. Under the 1979 constitution, which was administered by the military, no state was allowed to have its own civil police force.
Though Nigeria returned to democracy in 1999, religious divisions and disputes over who will manage the revenue from oil resources remain a source of tension for the Nigerian federation. Local ethnic groups oppose the centralisation of power over oil resources. So Nigeria shows how religious, ethnic and economic divisions among groups can blend together.
How does the Indian Constitution structure the division of powers between states and Centre?
The Constitution of India does not even use the word federation. Yet federalism in India refers to the relationship between the Centre and the states as set out in the Indian Constitution.
India is described by the following articles in the Indian Constitution:
Article 1: (1) India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States. (2) The States and the territories thereof shall be as specified in the First Schedule.
Part XI of the Indian Constitution sets out the distribution of legislative, administrative and executive powers between the Union government and the states of India.
What led the Constituent Assembly to turn to federalism for the Indian union?
Most of our national leaders realised that to govern a huge country like ours, authority would have to be divided between the provinces and the Central government.
Following India's partition, the Constituent Assembly decided to create a government based on the ideas of unity and collaboration between the Centre and the states, while also giving the states their own autonomous powers.
Division of Powers in India
The Indian Constitution creates two sets of government:
- Central government
- State government
Both of these have constitutional status and clearly identified areas of activity. If there is any dispute about which powers come under the Union and which under the States, it can be resolved by the judiciary on the basis of the constitutional provisions.
The Constitution clearly marks out subjects that are under the exclusive control of the Union and those under the States. One important feature of this division is that economic and financial powers are centralised in the hands of the Central government. The States, on the other hand, carry enormous responsibilities but have very small revenue sources of their own.
How are the areas of jurisdiction divided for Indian federalism?
The Union List has 100 subjects (originally 97), the State List has 61 subjects (originally 66) and the Concurrent List has 52 subjects (originally 47). Both the Centre and the states can make laws on the subjects of the Concurrent List, but in case of a conflict the Central law prevails.
The residuary subjects, meaning those that are not mentioned in any of the three lists, are given to the Centre.
Why is India considered to have federalism with a strong central government?
The Indian Constitution is widely seen as having set up a strong Central government. India is a continent sized country with enormous diversity and deep socioeconomic problems. The framers of the Constitution felt that these socioeconomic challenges should be tackled by a strong Central government working together with the states.
Poverty, illiteracy and wide gaps in wealth were among the issues that called for planning and cooperation. So concerns about unity and development pushed the authors of the Constitution to build a strong Central authority.
What are the provisions that create a strong central government?
Several provisions of the Constitution tilt power towards the Centre. The most important ones are territorial integrity, emergency provisions, financial powers, the office of the Governor, the greater executive powers of the Centre and the protection given to the All India services.
Territorial Integrity
The very existence of a State, including its territorial integrity, is in the hands of Parliament:
- Parliament is empowered to form a new state by separating territory from any existing state, or by uniting two or more States.
- It can also alter the boundary of any State or even its name.
- The Constitution provides some safeguards by seeking the view of the State legislature concerned.
Emergency Provisions
The Constitution has certain very powerful emergency provisions, which can turn our federal polity into a highly centralised system once an emergency is declared. During an emergency, power becomes lawfully centralised. Parliament also takes on the power to make laws on subjects that are within the jurisdiction of the States.
Financial Powers
In normal circumstances, the Central government has very strong financial powers and responsibilities. The items that generate the most revenue are under the control of the Central government.
- The Central government has many revenue sources, while the States are mostly dependent on grants and financial assistance from the Centre.
- After independence, India adopted planning as an instrument of rapid economic progress and development.
- Planning led to a good deal of centralisation of economic decision making.
For decades the Planning Commission, appointed by the Union government, was the coordinating body that supervised the way the States managed their resources. This distribution of economic resources was often seen as lopsided and led to charges of discrimination against States ruled by an opposition party. In 2015 the Planning Commission was replaced by NITI Aayog, a policy think tank, but the wider point still holds: the States remain heavily dependent on transfers from the Centre.
The Office of Governor
The Governor has certain powers to recommend the dismissal of the State government and the dissolution of the Assembly. Even in normal circumstances, the Governor has the power to reserve a bill passed by the State legislature for the assent of the President.
This allows the Central government to delay State legislation, to examine such bills and, in some cases, to veto them completely. The Constitution makes clear that the executive powers of the Centre are superior to the executive powers of the States.
Greater Executive Powers to the Centre
There may be times when the situation requires the Central government to legislate on issues from the State List. This is possible if the Rajya Sabha approves the move.
The executive powers of the federal government are plainly superior to those of the states, according to the Constitution. The federal government also has the authority to issue directions to state governments.
Protection to the All India Administration
The All India services also come under the control of the Central government. A state government can neither take disciplinary action against these officers nor remove them from service.
Articles 33 and 34 authorise Parliament to protect persons in the service of the Union or a state in respect of any action taken by them during martial law to maintain or restore order. This provision further strengthens the powers of the Union government. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act has been made on the basis of these provisions.
The Centre-State Relations
Centre-state relations can be studied under three heads:
- Legislative relations
- Administrative relations
- Financial relations
Legislative Relations between States and Centre
Articles 245 to 255 in Part XI of the Constitution deal with the legislative relations between the Centre and the states.
The Constitution divides legislative powers between the Centre and the states with respect to both the territory and the subjects of legislation. It also provides for parliamentary legislation in the state field under a few extraordinary situations, along with the Centre's control over state legislation in certain cases.
Distribution of legislative subjects
The two main threads here are parliamentary legislation in the state field and the Centre's control over state legislation, both of which lean the balance of power towards the Union.
Demands for Autonomy by States
- First, the division of powers should be changed in favour of the States, so that more and more important powers are assigned to the States.
- Second, the States should have independent sources of revenue and greater control over their sources. This is also known as financial autonomy.
- Third, some demands relate to the administrative powers of the States. States resent the control of the Centre over the administrative machinery.
- Fourth, autonomy demands may also be linked to cultural and linguistic issues. The opposition to the dominance of Hindi in Tamil Nadu, or the demand for advancing the Punjabi language and culture, are examples of this.
- Some States also feel that Hindi speaking areas dominate the others. In fact, during the 1960s, there were agitations in some States against the imposition of the Hindi language.
Role of Governors and President's Rule
The role of Governors has always been a controversial issue between the States and the Central government.
- The Governor is not an elected office holder.
- Many Governors have been retired military officers, civil servants or politicians.
- The Governor is appointed by the Central government, so the actions of the Governor are often seen as interference by the Central government in the working of the state government.
When two different parties are in power at the Centre and in the State, the role of the Governor becomes even more controversial. One of the most debated articles in the Constitution is Article 356, which provides for President's rule in any State.
This provision is meant to be used when a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. It results in the takeover of the State government by the Union government. The President's proclamation has to be ratified by Parliament, and President's rule can be extended up to three years.
The Governor has the power to recommend the dismissal of the State government and the suspension or dissolution of the State assembly. This has led to many conflicts. State governments were dismissed in some cases even when they had a majority in the legislature, as happened in Kerala in 1959, or without testing their majority, as happened in several other States after 1967.
Some of these cases went to the Supreme Court, and the Court has ruled that the constitutional validity of the decision to impose President's rule can be examined by the judiciary. This is a clear example of the judiciary acting as the referee of our federal system.
Interstate Conflicts
While the States keep bargaining with the Centre over autonomy and issues such as the share in revenue, there have also been many disputes between two States, or among more than two States.
The judiciary does act as the arbitration mechanism on disputes of a legal nature, but these disputes are, in reality, not just legal. They have political implications, and so they can often be resolved only through negotiation and mutual understanding. Two types of disputes keep recurring.
Border Disputes
- States sometimes have claims over territories held by neighbouring states. One of the long standing border disputes is between Maharashtra and Karnataka over the city of Belgaum.
- Manipur and Nagaland too have a long standing border dispute. The carving out of Haryana from the erstwhile State of Punjab has led to disputes between the two States, not only over border areas but over the capital city of Chandigarh, which today serves as the capital of both these States.
In 1985, the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi reached an understanding with the leadership of Punjab. According to this understanding, Chandigarh was to be handed over to Punjab. But this has not happened yet.
River water sharing
- These disputes are even more serious because they are tied to drinking water and agriculture in the States concerned. The Cauvery water dispute is a major issue between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.
- Farmers in both States depend on Cauvery waters. Though there is a river water tribunal to settle such disputes, the Cauvery dispute has also reached the Supreme Court.
In another similar dispute, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra have argued over sharing the waters of the Narmada river. Rivers are among the greatest resources, so these water disputes test the patience and the cooperative spirit of the states.
Jammu and Kashmir
- Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) once had a special status under Article 370.
- Jammu and Kashmir was one of the large princely states that had the option of joining India or Pakistan at the time of independence.
- Soon after independence, Pakistan and India fought a war over Kashmir. In these circumstances, the Maharaja of Kashmir acceded to the Indian union.
The autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir was actually much less than the language of Article 370 might suggest. There was a constitutional provision that allowed the President, with the agreement of the State government, to specify which parts of the Union List would apply to the State.
The President issued two Constitutional orders, in agreement with the Government of J&K, that made large parts of the Constitution applicable to the State. As a result, although J&K had a separate constitution and a flag, Parliament's power to make laws on subjects in the Union List came to be fully accepted.
The remaining differences between the other States and the State of J&K were that no emergency due to internal disturbance could be declared in J&K without the agreement of the State, the Union government could not impose a financial emergency in the State, and the Directive Principles did not apply in J&K. Amendments to the Indian Constitution under Article 368 could only apply with the agreement of the government of J&K.
On 5 August 2019, the Indian government revoked the special status and limited autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370.
Why it still matters
This chapter can feel like old history, but the tug of war between the Centre and the states is very much alive, and the judiciary is still the umpire. Two recent Supreme Court rulings show the exact ideas from these notes being tested in the real world. You can revise the wider picture on the Learnacy Hub and find more study notes on the site.
The Governor and a state's bills. Remember the section above on the Office of Governor, where the Governor can sit on a bill passed by the State legislature. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, decided on 8 April 2025, the Supreme Court looked at 10 bills that the Tamil Nadu Assembly had passed and that the Governor had held on to for a long time. The Court held that a Governor cannot withhold assent forever. Under Article 200 the Governor must act, and the Court even set a three month window for the President to decide on bills that are reserved under Article 201. Using its special powers under Article 142, the Court treated all 10 bills as having received assent. Here the judiciary stepped in as the referee between an elected state government and a centrally appointed Governor.
Article 370 and Jammu and Kashmir. These notes end on 5 August 2019, the day Article 370 was revoked. On 11 December 2023, a five judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in the case usually called In re Article 370, upheld that decision. The judges said that federalism, meaning the sharing of power between the Union and the states, is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, but they also held that Article 370 was always meant to be temporary. The Court asked that the full statehood of Jammu and Kashmir be restored as soon as possible.
Both cases carry the same lesson as this chapter. India runs on a strong Centre, yet an independent judiciary is the umpire that keeps the federal bargain honest. That is why the judiciary and federalism are worth understanding well beyond the exam.