Context

• The Constitution of India created a federal system with a pronounced unitary At Independence, the Constitution prioritised stability and unity over dispersion of authority.
• The argument for recalibration arises from the transformation of India into a politically mature, administratively capable, and socially consolidated nation.
• Continued concentration of authority at the Centre now risks weakening governance rather than strengthening national cohesion.
• A rebalancing of Union-State relations is therefore presented not as a political demand but as a constitutional necessity.

Historical Context: Why Centralisation Emerged?

• The immediate post-1947 environment shaped constitutional design. Partition, the integration of princely states, and fears of territorial fragmentation demanded a strong Union government.
• Borrowing institutional features from the Government of India Act, 1935, authority was concentrated in New Delhi.
• Centralisation functioned as a defensive mechanism to secure national consolidation.
• However, institutional structures created in emergency conditions often persist beyond the crisis. What began as a protective arrangement evolved into a permanent administrative orientation.

Theoretical Foundations: The Meaning of Federalism

• Federalism rests on both allocation and restraint of authority. The effectiveness of public power depends on its proximity to information and accountability.
• Decision-making closer to citizens improves responsiveness and administrative accuracy.
• Excessive centralisation produces fragility because a single authority cannot efficiently manage diverse responsibilities.
• A government that simultaneously oversees strategic sectors and local welfare disperses its capacity. The strength of a federation lies not in the accumulation of functions but in disciplined limitation.

Political Practice: From Necessity to Habit

• For decades, the dominance of a single national party reinforced central authority. Political hierarchy reduced practical autonomy even where legal powers existed.
• Later, coalition governments and the rise of regional parties produced greater equilibrium without threatening unity.
• India’s continued centralising orientation reflects persistence of early anxieties rather than present realities.
• The nation has moved beyond its formative insecurities, yet institutional reflexes remain.

Institutional Mechanisms of Centralisation

• Central authority expanded through multiple channels:
  • constitutional amendments,
  • legislation in the Concurrent List,
  • conditional fiscal transfers,
  • centrally sponsored schemes,
  • administrative oversight.
• Financial dependence has become a decisive instrument of influence. Ministries in New Delhi frequently duplicate state functions and steer priorities through procedural regulation.
• In certain areas, executive rule-making effectively overrides state legislation, altering the practical balance of power.

Judicial Doctrine and Constitutional Tension

• In R. Bommai (1994), the Supreme Court declared federalism part of the Basic Structure and affirmed that states are constitutionally autonomous within their spheres.
• Federalism derives from India’s diversity and historical pluralism rather than administrative convenience.
• A tension thus arises between doctrine and practice: judicial interpretation recognises parity of authority, yet administrative patterns continue to concentrate control.

Functional Argument: Why Decentralisation Improves Governance?

• India’s size and diversity make uniform policy inherently limited. Regional variation in language, ecology, labour markets, and development levels requires flexible solutions.
• Decentralisation allows policy experimentation, containment of failure, and replication of success.
• Many effective national programmes began as state initiatives.
• Regional experimentation in nutrition programmes, literacy campaigns, and employment guarantees demonstrated how local innovation informs broader policy. Over-centralisation suppresses such adaptive learning.

The Way Forward: Recalibration, Not Disintegration

• The relationship between the Union and the states is not a zero-sum contest. Strengthening states does not weaken the Union; it sharpens its focus on genuinely national functions.
• Concentrated national authority combined with regional autonomy improves both administrative efficiency and democratic legitimacy.

Conclusion

• India has reached a stage where centralisation no longer serves its original purpose.
• A calibrated redistribution of functions would align authority with responsibility and enhance accountability.
• A focused Union and trusted states together reinforce national unity; durable cohesion arises not from control but from participation, cooperation, and balanced constitutional practice.