COURSE I

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA

(CODE : K-105)

Unit I:

Nature, salient features of the constitution of India,

Preamble, Citizenship.

Unit II:

Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles of State Policy,

Fundamental duties.

Unit III:

The Union Executive The President, Council of Ministers

the Parliament the Union Judiciary, The State Executive,
Legislature and Judiciary.

Unit IV:

Privileges of the Legislatures, Centre- State Relations.

Unit V:

The State Liabilities Tortious & Contractual, Right to

Property Trade, Commerce & Intercourse, Protection to civil
servants, Elections, Emergency provisions,Emendment.

BOOK RECOMMENDED:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

H.M. Seervai
V.N. Shukla
D.D. Basu
J.N. Pandey
G.Austin

6. G.C.V. Subba Rao

:
:
:
:
:
:

Constitutional Law of India

The Constitution of India
Constitution of India
Constitution of India
Indias Constitution :Corner Stone
of a nation
Constitution of India.

CONSTITUTION AND CONSTITUTIONALISM

Constitution and Constitutionalism

The constitution is differently described as fundamental law, the
sociopolitical manifesto of a nation, the instrument of governance each
signifying an important dimension of the document.
A Constitution is the vehicle of a nation's progress. It is a legal and
social document. Constitution may be defined as a document having a
special legal sanctity, which sets out the framework and the principal
functions of the organs of the Government of a State and declares the
principles governing the operation of those organs.
It is the basic or fundamental document of a society or a country
and contains the basic or the fundamental or the first law of the country.
All the laws in the country are enacted under the Constitution and it is the
Supreme law of the land.
Constitutionalism
A country may have the Constitution but not necessarily
Constitutionalism e.g., a country with a dictatorship, where dictator's
word is law can be said to have 'Constitution' but not 'Constitutionalism'.
Constitutionalism recognizes the need for government but insists upon
limitations being placed upon governmental powers. Constitutionalism
envisages, checks and balances and putting the powers of the legislature
and the executive under some restraints and not making them
uncontrolled and arbitrary. Constitutionalism connotes in essence limited
Government or a limitation on Government. Constitutionalism is the
antithesis of arbitrary powers. Unlimited power may lead to an
authoritarian, oppressive government which jeopardizes the freedoms of

the people. When the constitution of a country seeks to decentralise

power instead of concentrating it at one point, and also imposes other
restraints and limitations thereon, a country is said to have not only
'Constitution' but also 'Constitutionalism'.
SALIENT FEATURES OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION
(1) Modem Constitution
(2) Written Constitution
(3) Preamble
(4) Socialist State
(5) Welfare State
(6) Secular State
(7) Responsible Government
(8) Fundamental right
(9) Minority and backward classes
(l0) Elections
(11) Judiciary
(12) Federal Constitution
PREAMBLE
The preamble does not grant any power but it gives a direction and
purpose to the Constitution. It outlines the objective of the whole
Constitution. The preamble contains the fundamentals of the Constitution.
It serves the several important purposes, e.g.
1. It contains the enacting clause which brings the Constitution into
force

2. It declares the basic type of Government and polity which is sought

to be established in the country.
3. It declares the great rights and freedoms which the people of India
intended to secure to all citizens.
4. It throws light on the source from which the Constitution comes
viz, the people of India.
Preamble as a source of the Constitution
The word in the preamble "We the people of India.... in our
Constituent Assembly ... do hereby adopt, enact and give to ourselves this
Constitution", propounds the theory that the 'sovereignty' lies in the
people, that the Constitution, emanates from them; that the ultimate
source for the validity of and the sanction behind the Constitution is the
will of the people; that the Constitution has not been imposed on them by
any external authority, but is the work of the Indians themselves.
Thus, the source of the Constitution are the people themselves from
whom the Constitution receives its ultimate sanction.
Preamble, whether a part of the Constitution or not
In Berubari Union Case (AIR 1960 SC 858 sq, the Supreme Court
held that the preamble is not a part of the Constitution and thus not a
source of any substantive powers and does not impart any limitation. But
in Keshavanand Bharti case, (AIR 1973 SC 1461) the Supreme Court
laid down that the preamble does form part of the Constitution and the
Court further observed that the preamble to our Constitution is of extreme

importance and the Constitution should be read and interpreted in the

light of the grand and noble vision expressed in the preamble.
Amendment of Preamble
The Supreme Court, in Keshavanand Bharti case, held that since
the preamble is a part of the Constitution, it can be amended, but basic
feature in it cannot be amended. The Court said "being the part of the
Constitution, the preamble is not outside the reach of amending power
under Article 368". It was in exercise of this amending power, the
Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 amended the preamble
inserting the terms 'Socialist', 'Secular', and 'integrity'.

CHAPTER 2
NATURE OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION AND CONCEPT OF
FEDERALISM
Federalism is a comparatively modem concept. However, there is
no agreed definition of a federal State. The genesis of federalism started
from ancient Greece. Evolution of its theory and practice in modem times
has come up with coming into existence of modem federation.
Broadly speaking there are two approaches to understand the
federal system, which are as follows:1. Traditional approach
Traditionalists place main emphasis on the existence of two
independent and coordinate authorities and joint Plenary powers within
the jurisdiction set apart by the Constitution. According to Prof K C.
Wheare the federal principle is the method of dividing powers so that the
general and regional Government are each within a sphere co-ordinate
and independent. On this basis Prof. Wheare finds that there are only four
federations in the world i.e. U.S.A., Canada, Australia and Switzerland.
He puts other federations (e.g. India) in the category of quasi-federations.
But this traditional or classic approach has some limitations. It
ignores compulsions of socio-economic forces operating in the modem
era which have not left unmoulded even the traditional federations of
Prof. Wheare. Thus on strict application of the traditional tests it is not
possible to find a single example of a true federation in the world.

2. Modern approach
As we have seen above the insistence of traditional approach on
independence in the mutual relationship of the States and the National
Government are too idealistic to be followed in the present age of
interdependence. This idea of "interdependence and cooperation finds
concrete expression in the formulation of concurrent powers, an area over
which both the national and State governments operate. Even some jurists
in traditional era such as Prof Birch have put emphasis on idea of
interdependence and have defined federalism as" the system of
government in which there is a division of powers between one general
and several regional authorities, each of which in its own sphere is
independent and coordinate with each other". The modem Jurists instead
of interdependent States talk of cooperative federalism, wherein the
relationship between two sets of Government is that of interdependence.
Some writers have suggested federation as a pure creature of expediency
whereby the powers are so distributed between the Central and State
Governments that there is scope for constant adjustment of relations
between the two sets of government according to requirement of time and
place. Dicey has defined a federal state, as, "a political contrivance
intended to reconcile national unity with maintenance of State rights."
ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF FEDERALISM
1. Duality of Government
While in a unitary State there is only one government, i.e. National
Government or Central Government, in a federal state there are two
governments, the Federal or Central Government and the Government of

each constituent State. This feature clearly differentiates between

federation and confederation.
2. Distribution of Powers
According to Prof. Diecy the very object for which a federal State
is formed involves a division of authority between the federal government
and the State Governments, though the method of distribution may not be
alike in the federal Constitutions.
3. Supremacy of the Constitution
Every action and policy as well as the power to do the above whether of
the State or Centre is subordinate to and controlled by the Constitution.
According to Prof. K.C. Wheare, "The Supreme Constitution is essential
if the government is to be federal....
4. Written and rigid Constitution.
It is not possible to maintain the aforesaid features of federalism
unless the Constitution is rigid and all the provisions are reduced into
writing. However, rigidity does not mean that there is no scope for
amending the Constitution to deal aptly with various kinds of unforseen
situations.
According to Prof K.C. Wheare, .....a written constitution is not
logically
required by federal principle but the written constitution is essential if the
federal is to work very well."

5. Authority of Courts
In a federal State the legal supremacy of the Constitution is
essential to the existence of a federal system and to ensure this it is
necessary to maintain the authority of Courts, which must have the final
power to interpret the constitution and guard the entrenched provisions of
the Constitution.
FEDERAL CHARACTERISTICS IN INDIAN CONSTITUTION
The extent to which essential characteristics of a federal
Constitution are present in the Indian Constitution is as follows:1. Indian Constitution establishes a dual polity.
2. There is a written Constitution, which is supreme.
3. The rigidity of Constitution is ensured by the fact that no changes in
the position of the Centre and the States are possible without the
concurrence of both the Centre and the State.
4. A Constitution establishes an apex Court in the form of the Supreme
Court to maintain the authority of Courts. However, there are certain
modifications of Indian Constitution regarding the federal principle,
which are as follows:
1. The Governor of the State is appointed by the President of India
and he holds the office during the pleasure of the President. A close
examination of certain provisions of the constitution of India
reveals that the Governor acts in a manner suitable to the President
even at the cost of interests of the State. Failure to do so may result
in a President rule in the State under Article 356, even in perfectly
normal situations.

2. The State legislatures can be dissolved and president's rule can be

imposed either on the report of Governor or otherwise when there
is a failure of the Constitutional machinery in the State.
3. The Governor of the State is empowered to reserve the bill passed
by the State legislature for consideration of President and the
President of India is not bound to give his assent to such a bill
(Art.201).
4. The Parliament has the power to re-organise the States. This may
undermine or even wipe out the existence of the States.
5. The parliament may make laws relating to the States even in
normal times, e.g.
1) Legislation in national interest (Article 249)
2) Legislation by agreement of States (Article 252)
3) Legislation for giving effect to international agreements (Article
253).
4) During emergency (Article 250).
6. Previous sanction of the President is required for introduction ofa
bill in the said legislature under Article 304 or 254(2) and 3 I-A.
7. The Central Government exercises financial control over the State!
through grants-in-aids.
8. The Union has a definite supremacy over the financial and
administrative relations between States.
9. The supremacy of Central Government also results from:
1) Concurrent list of legislative powers,
2) Scope of mutual delegation of executive powers.

3) Adjustments of financial resources between the Union and the

States.
4) All-India Services,
5) Integrated judicial system,
6) Single citizenship,
7) Inter-State Council.
INDIAN CONSTITUTION-FEDERAL OR QUASI-FEDERRAL
Prof Wheare describes Indian Constitution as "quasi-federal",
almost devolutionary in character; a unitary State with subsidiary federal
features rather than a federal State with subsidiary unitary features.
Jennings has characterised the Indian Government system as "a
federation with a strong centralising tendency."
Dicey holds that the extent of federalism in India is largely watered
down by the needs of progress and development of a country which have
to be nationally integrated, politically and economically coordinated, and
socially. intellectually and spiritually uplifted.
G. Austin and A.H Birch called it a "co-operative federalism" i.e. is
neither purely federal nor purely unitary but a combination of both.
Dr. Ambedkar considered our Constitution to be both unitary well
as federal according to the requirements of time and circumstances.
There is difference of opinions regarding the character of Indian
Constitution. This is so because according to the needs and demands of
circumstances and to meet the aspirations of the people our Constitution
contains various provision which deviate from the truly federal character.
Some of such deviations are as follows:

DEVIATION FROM FEDERAL CHARACTER

1) Parliament can unilaterally alter or change the area, boundary or
name of States, even without their consents or against their wishes.
2) During emergency period, the Union Parliament can make laws in
relation to matters given in the State List, give directions to States,
empower the Union officers to execute matters in State List, and
suspend the financial provisions of the Constitution or even dismiss
the State Governments.
3) The Union Government is empowered to issue administrative
directions to the States. The directions are binding on States and
these directions could be enforced by Union through various means
as provided in the Constitution.
4) Union Parliament can make laws in relation to matters of State
List, in the national interest on a resolution passed by two-third
majority of Rajya Sabha to the effect that it is necessary or
expedient for Parliament to do so or to implement any international
treaty, agreement or convention.
5) In case of inconsistency between Union and State laws, the Union
law shall prevail.
6) Laws passed by State may be reserved for consideration of the
President by the Governor. Some of them have to be specifically
reserved and some of them cannot be even introduced or moved in
the State legislature without the previous sanction of the President.
7) The Governors of the States are appointed by the President. They
hold their office during the pleasure of the President and up to the
extent, they exercise their powers in their discretion, are
answerable to him.

It should be noted that there is no clear-cut formula or guidelines to

decide whether a system is federal or not. In the Indian context, it can be
said that Indian Constitution is basically federal with striking unitary
features and so has been the attitude of law Courts in India while
interpreting the structure of the Indian Constitution. However, many
States are not satisfied with Centre-State relationship and have requested
for a change in the fundamental features of the system of Governments.
However, the States, especially where opposition parties or
regional parties are in a majority remain unsatisfied with the present set
up of distribution of powers between the Centre and the State and forced
the Central Government to appoint Sarkaria Commission in 1983 to
review the distribution of p0l'ers between the Centre and the State within
the purview of the Constitution of India. Although Sarkaria Commission
had submitted its report in 1987, the main recommendations of this
Commission are yet to be implemented.
CASE LAW
Ram Jawaya Kapoor v. State of Punjab
AIR 1955 SC 549
Facts
The petitioners carried on the business of printing and publishing
books for sale including text-books used in schools in Punjab. The
Government of Punjab decided in furtherance of its policy of
nationalization of the text-books for school students that after approving
the text books, they would purchase the copyright in them from authors
and others, provided they were willing to transfer the same to the

Government on certain terms. So the Government took upon themselves

to print and publish the same. The petitioners challenged the Government
action as violative of federal principle of Constitution as well as Article
19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Issues Involved
1) Whether the Constitution of India is federal Constitution?
2) Whether the action of the Government is violative of the
petitioners' right under Article 19(1)(g)?
Decision
The Indian Constitution has not indeed recognised the federal
principle or doctrine of separation of powers in its absolute rigidity, but
the functions of the different parts or branches of the Government have
been sufficiently differentiated. Consequently, it can very well be said
that our Constitution does not contemplate assumption by one organ or
part of the State of functions that essentially belong to another. The
executive indeed can exercise the powers of departmental or subordinate
legislation when such powers are delegated to it by the legislature. The
Court held that the federal principle is not incorporated in the Indian
Constitution in the strict and rigid form.

In Asif Hamed v. State of J&K (AIR 1989 SC 1899), the Hon'ble

Supreme Court reiterated the above view that Indian Constitution is not a
typical federal Constitution.
State of West Bengal v. Union of India
AIR 1963SC 1241
Facts
The Parliament had enacted the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition
and Development) Act, 1957, authorising the Union Government to
acquire any coal bearing land or any right in or over such land in any part
of India. On the basis of this Act, the Union Government commenced
acquisition proceedings with respect to certain lands in West Bengal. The
State Government challenged the right of the Union Government to
acquire land which was vested in the State and instituted a
Issue Involved
Whether the Indian Constitution is a truly federal Constitution?
Whether the State of West Bengal is a sovereign authority?
Relevant Law
Article 246(3) of Constitution read with entry 42, List III of
Constitution.
Decision
The Court noted that the requisites of federalism are:1. A truly federal form of Government envisages a contract or
agreement between independent and sovereign units to partially

surrender their authority in the common interest. This surrendered

authority vests in the Union and the States retain the residue of the
authority in the Constituent units.
2. Supremacy of the Constitution.
3. Distribution of powers between the Union and the regional units
and each is in its sphere co-ordinate and independent of the other.
4. Supreme authority of the Courts to interpret the Constitution and to
invalidate actions violative of the Constitution.
The Court traced the history of Constitution and related law since
assumption of authority by the British Crown in 1858 and concluded that
among the aforesaid, characteristic (4) is to be found in full force but (1)
and (2) are absent. The Court said that India is nota typical federal form
of Constitution because:1) The appointment of the Governor is made by the President and it is
open to the President to make such provision as he thinks fit for the
discharge of the function of a Governor of the State in any
contingency, not provided for in Constitution.
2) Exercise of Executive authority of the States is largely restricted by
diverse Constitutional provisions. In times of emergency, power to
override the exercise of executive power of the State is entrusted to
the Union.
3) Distribution of legislative powers is effected by Article 246. In
respect of matters set out in the three lists as well as the residuary
power under article 248 and the power to tax are vested in the
parliament giving it a clear cut edge over the States.

4) Power of taxation (which is exercisable by the States in

comparatively minor fields, the more important such as Income
Tax, Wealth Tax etc. being reserved to the Union) is also vested in
the Union.
5) The States depend largely upon financial assistance from the
Union.
6) (vi)In times of national, political or financial emergency, the States
may exercise only such powers, legislative and executive, as the
Union permits.
7) What appears to militate against the theory regarding the
sovereignty of the State is the wide power with which the
parliament is vested to alter the boundaries of States, and even to
extinguish the existence of a State.
The Court held that there is no theory of State sovereignty in our
Constitution. Hence, it is not possible to accede to the contention that
Parliament is incompetent to legislate the acquisition of property owned
by a State for its governmental purposes. Such power of the parliament
has not been made subject to any restrictions and to imply any restrictions
in this respect is to envisage in the constitutional scheme something
which does not exist.
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India
AIR 1977 SC 1361
The Supreme Court said that in a sense, the Indian Union is
federal. But the extent of federalism in India is largely watered down by
the needs of progress and development of a country which have to be

nationally integrated, politically and economically co-ordinated and

socially, intellectually and spiritually uplifted.
In such a situation, the state cannot stand in the way of legitimate
and comprehensively planned development of the country in the manual
directed by the centrol governments.
State of Haryana v. Sate of Punjab
AIR 2002 SC 685
Fact
The State of Haryana filed a suit for issuance of mandatory
injunction against the State of Punjab, to complete the portion of Sutlej
Yamuna Link Canal, pursuant to agreement between the two states for
division of river waters.
Issue
Concept of federal character & Fedarlism was in issue.
Decision
The court issued a mandatory injunction directing the State of
Punjab to complete the canal and make it functional within a year. The
court also directed the Central Government to discharge its own
Constitutional obligation to ensure that the canal is completed as early as
possible.
The court further discussed the concept of federalism that in a
semi-federal system of Government, which has been adopted under the
Indian Constitution, all the essential powers, both legislative and
executive have been conferred upon the Central Government. True

federalism means the distribution of powers between a Central Authority

and the Constituent Units.
Dicey's concept of federalism is a national Constitution for a body
of States, which desire union and do not desire unity. According to him, a
federal State is a political contrivance intended to reconcile national unity
and powers with the maintenance of the State rights. The essence of a
federation is therefore, existence of a Union and its States and the
division of power between the Union and the integrity of the Union and
each State seem, to be essential o the federal concept. Authors, therefore,
described our Government to be a government that is federal in structure
but somewhat unitary in spirit.
In this case, the Supreme Court also held that the decision of one
Government relating to governance of a State or its execution would bind
the successor government when it does not involve any political
philosophy. The successor Government must complete the unfinished job.
Deprecating the "vote bank" politics, it observed: The Constitution
conceives III' II Government to be manned by the representatives of the
people, who get themselves elected in an election. The decision taken at
the governmental level would not be so easily nullified by a change of
Government and by such other political party assuming power,
particularly when such a decision affects some other State and the interest
of the nation as a whole. It cannot be disputed that so 1I1r as the policy is
concerned, a political party assuming power is entitled to engraft the

political philosophy behind the party, since they must be held to be the
will of the people.
Kuldeep Nayar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
(2006) 7 SCC 1
Facts
Under Article 32 the petitioners challenged the amendments made
in Representation of the people Act,1951. The amendment deleted the
requirement of domicile in the state concerned for getting elected to the
Council of States or Rajya Sabha, which according to the petitioners
violated the principle of federalism, a basic feature of the Constitution.
Issue
The content and the significance of the word 'domicile' and essence
of structure of Federalism.
Decision
The apex court ruled that under Article 83(1), Rajya Sabha is a
permanen1 body with members being elected for 6 years terms and 1/3 of
the members retiring every 2 years. These 'staggered terms' also lead to a
consequence, where that membership of the Rajya Sabha may not reflect
the political equations present it the Lok Sabha at the same time.
However, it is no part of federal principle that the representatives of the
States must belong to that State. There is no such principal discernible as
an essential attribute of Federalism, even in the various examples a the
upper chambers in other countries. The various constitutions of other
countries show that residence, in the matter of qualifications, becomes a

Constitutional requirement only if it is expressly so stated in the

Constitution. Residence is not the essence of the structure of the upper
house. The upper house will not collapse if residence as an element is
removed. Therefore, it is not a prerequisite c federalism. It cannot be said
that residential requirement for membership to the upper house is an
essential basic feature of all federal Constitutions. Hence, if the
Parliament, in its wisdom has chosen not to require a residential
qualification, it would definitely not violate the basic feature of
Federalism. Our Constitution does not cease to be federal Constitution
simply because a Rajya Sabha member doe! not "ordinarily reside" in the
State from which he is elected.
The nature of federalism in the Indian Constitution is no longer res
integral. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that the Indian
model is broadly based on a federal form of governance but with a tilt
towards the Centre.
Under strict federalism, the Lower House represents "the people"
and the Upper House consists of the "Union" of the federation. In strict
federalism both the chambers have equal legislative and financial powers.
However, in the Indian context, strict federalism was not adopted. The
Indian Union has been described as the "holding together" of different
areas by the Constitution-framers, unlike the "coming together" of
constituent units as in the case of the USA and the confederation of
Canada.

The Constitution does incorporate the concept of federalism in

various provisions. The provisions which establish the essence of
federalism i. e. having States and a Centre, with a division of functions
between them with sanction of the Constitution include, among others,
Lists II and III of the Seventh Schedule that give plenary powers to the
State Legislatures; the authority to Parliament to legislate in a field
covered by the States under Article 252 only with the consent of two or
more States, with provision for adoption of such legislation by any other
State; the competence of Parliament to legislate in matters pertaining to
the State List, only for a limited period, under Article 249 "in the national
interest" and under Article 250 during "emergency", vesting the President
with the power under Article 258( 1) to entrust a State Government, with
the consent of the Governor, functions in relation to matters to which
executive power of the Union extends, notwithstanding anything
contained in the Constitution; decentralization of power by formation of
independent municipalities and panchayats through the 73rd and 74th
Amendments, etc.
Thus, though the federal principle is dominant in our Constitution
and that principle is one of its basic features, but it is also equally true
that federalism under the Indian Constitution leans in favour of a strong
Centre, a feature that militates against the concept of strong federalism.
Some of the provisions that can be referred to in this context include the
power of the Union to deal with extraordinary situations such as during
the emergency (Articles 250, 252, 253) and in the event of a proclamation
being issued under Article 356 that the governance of a State cannot be
carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and; the

power of Parliament to legislate with respect to a matter in the State List

in the national interest in case there is a resolution of the Council of
States supported by prescribed majority (Article 249). Ar1icle 251 when
read with Article 249 in effect permits the Rajya Sabha to encroach upon
the specified legislative competence of a State Legislature by declaring a
matter to be of national importance. Though it may have been
incorporated as a safeguard in the original constitutional scheme, this
power allows the Union Government to interfere with I Ill' functioning of
a State Government, which is most often prompted by the existence of
opposing party affiliations at the Central and State levels. Other
provisions include the power of Parliament to provide for creation and
regulation of All-India Services common to the Union and the States in
case there is a resolution of the Council of States supported by not less
than a two-thirds majority ( article 312); there is only one citizenship,
namely, the citizenship of India; and, perhaps most important, the power
of Parliament in relation to the formation of new States and alteration of
areas, boundaries or names of States (Article 3). This bias towards
"unitary power" under normal circumstances is not seen either in the I J
SA or Canada.
Finally court concluded thatIndia is not a federal State in the traditional sense of the term.
There can be no doubt as to the fact, and this is of utmost significance for
purposes at hand, that in the context of India, the principle of federalism
is not territory related. This is evident from the fact that India is not a true
federation formed by agreement between various States and territorially.

It is open to the Central Government under Article 3 of the Constitution,

not only to change the boundaries, but even to extinguish a State. Further,
when it comes to exercising powers, they are weighed heavily in favour
of the Centre, so much so that various descriptions have been used to
describe India such as a pseudo-federation or quasi-federation in an
amphibian form, etc.
FURTHER QUESTIONS
What are the main characteristics of a Federal Constitution? In the
light of these characteristics examine whether or not the Indian
Constitution can be described as a federal Constitution?
Or, Point out the distinct feature of the Constitution of India which show
that it is not a federal Constitution in the real sense but point towards
semi-federal Constitution. Would you suggest retention of those features?
Or, "The Constitution of India does not indeed claim to establish a federal
union, but the federal principle has been introduced into it to such an
extent that it is justifiable to describe it as a quasi-federal Constitution.
Whether, in its operations, it will provide another example of federal
government remains to be seen." (K.C. Wheare, Federal Government).
Comment critically.
Or, Critically examine the following statement of the Supreme
Court in State of West Bengal v. Union of India (AIR 1963 SC 1241):
The Constitution of India is not true to any traditional pattern of
federation".
Or, "Federalism in the Indian Constitution is not a matter of
administrative convenience, but one of the principal outcome of our own

historical process and a recognition of the ground realities." Examine

critically the above observation in the light of the decisions of the
Supreme Court.
Ans. Indian federalism which is unique in the world because of its
mode 0' formation i.e. from Union to States and not vice-versa.
As different parts of the country were at different stages of development
an it was difficult to control from one centre so India adopted a federal
structure.; However, framers of Constitution opted for a 'strong centre' in
order to coordinate" activities of various states in the interests of
uniformity & to check an anti national' tendencies.
Supreme court's view on Federalism:Supreme court's view on the nature of constitution is not settled. In
State of W.B. v. V.O.I. (AIR 1963 SC 1241) it was held that the Indian
Constitution is not truly federal because the states are not coordinate with
the Union.
In re under Article 143 (AIR 1965 SC 745) the Supreme Court
had a view that Indian Constitution is federal in nature.
In State of Rajasthan v. V.O.I. (AIR 1977 SC 1361), the Supreme
Court has characterized the Indian Constitution more unitary than federal.
In Satpal v. State of Punjab (1982) SCC 12, the court has
expressed the view that there is combination offederal structure with
unitary feature in the Indian Constitution.
IN Pradeep Jain v. V.O.I. (AIR 1984 SC 1420) the Supreme Court
held that India is not a compact of sovereign states which have come
together to form a federation by ceding a part of sovereign to the federal

state. Thus India cannot be characterizes as truly federal state. It has some
features of federalism but still not a federal state.

ASSIGNMENT
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (K-105)
Unit I
Q.1.

The Indian Constitution establishes a system of Government which is

almost quasi-federal a unitary state with a subsidiary federal, features
unitary features, Explain.

Q.2.

What is the Nature of Indian Constitution.

Q.3.

What are the salient features of the Indian constitution?

Q.4.

The preamble of the constitution reflects the aspirations of the

Constitution Makers. Discuss this statement.

Q.5.

The preamble of Constitutions sets out the main objective, which the
Constitution makers wanted to achieve. Discuss the statement. Can
preamble be amended Under Act. 368 at the Constitution?

Q.6.

Can a company be an Indian Citizen? Refer to decided cases in support

of your answer.