JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

2015-2016

Cooperative Federalism

Submitted to

Dr. Asad Malik

Faculty of Law

Jamia Millia Islamia

By

Manvendra Pratap Singh

3rd semester

Faculty of Law

Jamia Millia Islamia

Acknowledgement

Writing the Acknowledgement for the project in the subject of Constitution is a

fairly simple undertaking for anyone who has attended even a single class of Dr.
Asad Malik. The clarity, the command and the humour he brings into every class is
infectious, making any student believe that there can be no easier subject that the
Indian Constitution and that anyone can master it, provided he gives the subject the
respect and recognition that Sir himself gives the subject.

Furthermore I would like to thank all those people who gave the subject their time
and wrote books which I eventually referred. In this matter, I would particularly
like to thank Dr. M. P. Jain, whose book was precise and the largest reference in
this work.

Without the contribution of the above said people I could have never completed
this project.
Contents

Introduction

Federalism in the Indian Constitution

The basic features of a federal government

History of Federalism in India

Federal structure in india

Cooperative Federalism
Conclusion
Introduction

The Distribution of power is an essential feature of federalism. The object for

which a federal State is formed involves a division of authority between the
National government and the separate states, the tendency of federalism to
limit on every side the action of the government and to split up the strength of
the state among co-ordinate and independent authorities is especially
noticeable, because it forms the essential distinction between a federal system
and a unitary system of Government.1

Federalism, it is universally acknowledged, has many virtues. Federal governance

promotes efficiency, both economic and political. Federalism is considered
efficient from the political angle as well because of the facility it provides for a
heterogeneous population to come together under the banner of one nation and
acquire strength from unity while allowing the constituents to retain their identity
and autonomy over a wide area of public life. A well designed, and more
important, well functioning system of federal governance, by virtue of its manifold
benefits, plays a key role in promoting the stability and prosperity of nations as the
heights attained in development by the leading federations of the world USA,
Canada, Australia and Switzerland demonstrate. On the other hand, unless
carefully crafted, federal systems do not endure as evidenced by the disintegration
of many of the federal formations that came into being in the last century, such as
Soviet Russia, Yugoslavia, Czechslovakia and Rhodesia. The art of federalism lies
in designing institutions with appropriate assignment of powers and functions

1 A. V. Dicey The Law of the Constitution, p. 151, 155 (10 th Edn. 1959)
among different orders of government and rules to regulate their relationship
especially in the fiscal arena that can strike the right balance among different
objectives and resolve tensions.

The definition of federalism as given in the discussion at the Berne conference of

2011 hosted by the World Bank, U.S. Institute for Peace, and the Swiss Federal
Department of Foreign Affairs is as follows,

Federalism refers to a system of somewhat autonomous units (the constituent

units) brought together under one unified system (the federal government).
Typically, the federal government has limited functions that are thought to be
important to all the constituent units and which the separate constituents would not
be able easily to perform on their own this means that a vertical allocation of
responsibilities must occur between the federal level and the constituent level. At
the same time, there are usually aspects of autonomy for the constituent units
which should be protected from interference by other constituent units an
allocation of responsibilities horizontally. The essential elements of a federal
system thus are:

constituent units
federal government
allocation of responsibilities vertically
allocation of responsibilities horizontally
Federalism in the Indian Constitution

To all appearances, the constitution that has formed the basis of governance in
India since independence; is federal. Though not formally designated as federal
it is proclaimed as a 'Union of states' in its very first article the constitution has
all the trappings of a federal polity, viz., statutorily mandated two layers of
government with specification of their respective powers and functions and also
the fiscal institutions that are needed to support a federal structure including
mechanisms for intergovernmental transfers to address the vertical and horizontal
imbalances that all federations unavoidably face.

One entity is not subordinate to the other in its own field; the authority of one is
co-ordinate with that of the other.

The Indian political system though supposedly decentralized and federal is too
centrist. It is quasi-federal at best and does not allow enough room for the states to
function freely or decentralization to come into full play.

In particular, what lends credence to characterization of Indias constitution as

unitarist or quasi-federal2 are:

A large concurrent list covering wide areas like economic and social
planning with residuary powers with the centre;
Primacy of central laws in the event of any conflict between a state
legislation and a parliamentary law;

2 Chelliah, 1991
 Requirement of governor's assent for laws passed by state assemblies and of
president's assent for state enactments in certain matters3.
Power to parliament with qualifying majority to redraw the boundaries of a
state, divide it, and create new ones.
Power to the centre to take over the administration of a state in certain
circumstances and promulgate 'President's Rule'4.

The basic features of a federal government

Chief essentials for a constitution to be federal are:

1. Dispersion of powers between the center and the unit states forming federation
among a number of co-ordinate bodies, controlled by constitution.

2. Rigidity neither the center nor the state has power to amend the provision of
constitution relating separation of powers.

3. A written constitution

4. Domination of the constitution neither of center nor state has power to nullify
the constitution

5. An independent body and unprejudiced authority

In Pradeep Jain v. Union of India5, the Apex Court expressed as India is not a
federal State in the traditional sense of that term. It is not a compact of sovereign
State which have come together to form a federation by ceding undoubtedly
federal features.

3 Article 201
4 Article 356
5 1984 SCR (3) 942
The basic idea that has to be agreed to with is that the Constitution of India is
supreme and the Central legislative body cannot make any changes to those laws
included to define the power sharing arrangements between the Center and the
States in the country. This makes the Constitution of India federal in its approach
to power sharing between the center and the sub-ordinate units of the country.

But then it also has to be noted that there is no clear distinction of the division of
power between the center and the states, this can be seen as evident from the fact
that there are provisions for the over-riding of the will of the states in cases where
there is the implementation of Art. 201 and Art. 356. Articles 356, 352 and 360
give the power to the president to declare emergency, which can transform federal
system into a unitary system; however the provision is meant for temporary and
can be used only under certain exceptional situations under certain restrictions
created through judicial intervention, there are many circumstances in which the
central government has used this power to dissolve the state governments of the
opposite parties and to remain in power at the centre.

It also has to be noted that in the introduction of the Concurrent list, there is
confusion as to which entity, i.e. the Center or the States have the last say in the
matter, though it is accepted that if the two entities are in direct opposition to each-
other, then the decision of the Union shall be considered to have more weight than
that of the State.

History of Federalism in India

The framing of the Indian Constitution and enunciation of the principle of

federalism would have weighed heavily on the conscious and subconscious minds
of the members of the Constituent Assembly (CA), formed in December 19466.
Writing of the Constitution against the backdrop of the partition of the country, the
accompanying communal frenzy and integration of 565-odd princely states with
erstwhile British provinces into one functioning unit, would have made the task
even more complex. The Constituent Assembly, after prolonged debates, settled for
unitary federalism in the backdrop of the challenges confronting the emerging or
just emerged independent nation. Even though the framers of the Constitution were
divided on the issue of federalism as indicated by the prolonged and passionate
debates that took place in the Constituent Assembly, there was a general consensus
towards building India as a nation and a comprehensive understanding of the
nation as a whole; they did not approach the issue of constitution writing
visualizing India in parts. Further, historical experiences, like the rise and fall of
the Mauryan, Gupta, Mughal and other empires, could also have built the argument
in favour of unitary federalism. Before the formation of the Constituent
Assembly, the Cabinet Mission Plan had outlined a central government with very
limited powers to be confined to foreign affairs, defense and communications

However, the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League could not reach an
agreement on the Plan. Further, the first report by the Constituent Assembly also
envisioned a relatively weak Centre as advocated by the Cripps and Cabinet
Mission Plans. The passing of the India Independence Act and the eventual
Partition of India led the Constituent Assembly to adopt a more unitary version of
federalism.

Interestingly, Mahatma Gandhi was in favour of a decentralized structure and

had expressed a preference for a panchayat or village-based federation. Dr B.

6 Lawrence Saez, Federalism without a Centre (New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2002 , p 26
R. Ambedkar and Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru were in favour of a unitary
state while Home Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and many others stood for the
cause of federalism.

Ultimately a healthy compromise was arrived at, to ensure a balance of power

between the Centre and States and the Constitution described India as a
'Union of States' implying that its unity is indestructible. It prescribed the
structure of the Union government and also that of the state governments,
together with one common citizenship for the whole of India rather than a dual
citizenship. The federal system brought the provinces together and placed them all
on the same legal footing. Use of the term 'union' indicated that Indian federalism
did not come into existence due to some mutual agreement or compact among the
constituent units. These units were also not given freedom to secede from the
union. There were no provisions of safeguards for the protection of states' rights
because the states were not sovereign entities at the time of the formation of the
Union.

It goes to the credit of the framers of the Constitution that they had visualised and
anticipated contingencies which might arise at some point in the future and had
made provisions to meet them. As pointed out by constitutional experts, The
Constitution by adapting itself to changed circumstances strengthens the
Government in its endeavour to overcome the crisis. It is rather a merit of the
Constitution that it visualises the contingencies when the strict application of the
federal principle might destroy the basic assumption on which our Constitution is
built.
Federal structure in India

In Ganga Ram Moolchandani v. State of Rajasthan 7 the Supreme Court restated:

Indian Constitution is basically federal in form and is marked by the traditional
characteristics of a federal system, namely supremacy of the Constitution, division
of power between the Union and States and existence independent judiciary. The
apex Court in ITC LTD v Agricultural Produce Market Committee8 expressed a
similar opinion.

In the Kesavananda Bharati vs. state of Kerala9 case, the Supreme Court ruled that
all provisions of the constitution, including Fundamental Rights can be amended.
However, the Parliament cannot alter the basic structure of the constitution like
secularism, democracy, federalism, separation of powers. Often called the "Basic
structure doctrine", this decision is widely regarded as an important part of Indian
history.

In the 1978 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India10 case, the Supreme Court extended
the doctrine's importance as superior to any parliamentary legislation. According to
the verdict, no act of parliament can be considered a law if it violated the basic
structure of the constitution. This landmark guarantee of Fundamental Rights was
regarded as a unique example of judicial independence in preserving the sanctity of
Fundamental Rights. The Fundamental Rights can only be altered by a
constitutional amendment, hence their inclusion is a check not only on the
executive branch, but also on the Parliament and state legislatures. The imposition

7 2001( 3 )SCR 992

8 AIR 2002 SC 852
9 AIR 1973 SC 1461
10 AIR 1978 SC 597
of a state of emergency may lead to a temporary suspension of the rights conferred
by Article 19 (including freedoms of speech, assembly and movement, etc.) to
preserve national security and public order.

Federal concept in the context of Indian Constitution always has been a

controversial question - the States demanding for more powers and less control by
Union and the Union advocating for a strong Centre especially to maintain the
sovereignty and integrity of the Nation. Article 1(1) of the Indian Constitution,
hereinafter referred to as "Constitution" in short, simply says : India, that is Bharat,
shall be a Union of States. Federalism and nature of Indian Federalism was well
discussed in State of Rajasthan v. Union of India11, , S.R. Bommai v. Union of
India.

In the decision referred in State of Rajasthan case at, the Apex Court held:

"A conspectus of the provisions of our Constitution will indicate that, whatever
appearances of a federal structure our Constitution may have, its operations are
certainly judged both by the contents of power which a number of its provisions
carry with them and the use that has been made of them, more unitary than federal.
I mention the use that has been made of the constitutional provisions because
Constitutional practice and convention become so interlinked with or attached to
Constitutional provisions and are often so important and vital for grasping the real
purpose and function of Constitutional provisions that the two cannot often be
viewed apart. And, where the content of powers appears so vague and loose, from
the language of a provision as it seems to us to be in Article 356(1), for the reasons
given above, practice and convention may so crystallize as to become more
significant than the letter of the law. At any rate, they cannot be divorced from

11 1978 SCR (1) 1

Constitutional law. They seem to us to be relevant even in understanding the
purpose, the import, and the meaning of the words used in Article 356(1). This will
be apparent also from a perusal of the judgment of this Court in Shamsher Singh v.
State of Punjab12 ."13

In the decision referred in S.R. Bommai's case14, the Apex Court held at Para 107:

"The federal State is a political convenience intended to reconcile national unity

and integrity and power with maintenance of the State's right. The end aim of the
essential character of the Indian federalism is to place the nation as a whole under
control of a national Government, while the States are allowed to exercise their
sovereign power within the legislative and co-extensive executive and
administrative sphere. The common interest is shared by the Centre and the local
interests are controlled by the States. The distribution of the legislative and
executive power within limits and co-ordinate authority of different organs are
delineated in the organic law of the land, namely the Constitution itself. The
essence of federalism, therefore, is distribution of the force of the State among its
co-ordinate bodies. Each is organized and controlled by the Constitution. The
division of power between the Union and the State is made in such a way that
whatever has been the power distributed, legislative and executive, be exercised by
the respective units making each a sovereign in its sphere and the rule of law
requires that there should be a responsible Government. Thus the State is a federal
status. The State qua the Centre has quasi-federal unit. In the language of Prof.
K.C. Wheare, to ascertain the federal character, the important point is, "whether the
powers of the Government are divided between coordinate independent authorities

12 1975 SCR (1) 814

13 Para 51
14 (1994) SCC 1
or not"15, and at he stated that "the systems of Government embody predominantly
on division of powers between Centre and Regional authority each of which in its
own sphere is co-ordinate, with the other independent as of them, and if so is that
Government federal?16"

In reference to Art. 136, the Supreme Court has said,

"In dealing with this question, it is necessary to bear in mind one fundamental
feature of a Federal Constitution. In England, Parliament is sovereign; and in the
words of Dicey, the three distinguishing features of the principle of Parliamentary
Sovereignty are that Parliament has the right to make or unmake any law whatever;
that no person or body is recognized by the law of England as having a right to
override or set aside the legislation of Parliament, and that the right or power of
Parliament extends to every part of the Queen's dominions17. On the other hand, the
essential characteristic of federalism is "the distribution of limited executive,
legislative and judicial authority among bodies which are co-ordinate with and
independent of each other". The supremacy of the Constitution is fundamental to
the existence of a federal State in order to prevent either the Legislature of the
federal unit or those of the member States from destroying or impairing that
delicate balance of power which satisfies the particular requirements of States
which are desirous of union, but not prepared to merge their individuality in a
unity. This supremacy of the Constitution is protected by the authority of an
independent judicial body to act as the interpreter of a scheme of distribution of
powers. Nor is any change possible in the Constitution by the ordinary process of

15 Federal Government, 1963, pg 12

16 page 33
17 The Law of the Constitution by A.V. Dicey, p.XXXIV
federal or State legislation18. Thus the dominant characteristic of the British
Constitution cannot be claimed by a Federal Constitution like ours."

In State of M.P. v. Bharath Singh19 , it was held that the Indian Federal structure is
founded on;

(1) Sovereignty of people with limited Government authority; and

(2) Distribution of power between three organs of the State -Legislature, Executive
and Judicial, each organ having some check direct or indirect on the other.

It is laid down by, that the most important point to ascertain whether a Constitution
is Federal in character is whether the powers of the Government are divided
between co-ordinate independent authority or not20. In accordance to H. M. Servai,
the learned author expressed the opinion that the most important feature of Federal
Constitution is the distribution of legislative power 21. Even A.V. Dicey22, had
expressed an opinion that the distribution of limited executive, legislative and
judicial authority among bodies each co-ordinate with and independent of the other
is essential to the Federal form of Government.

Federal set up is always understood in contradistinction to unitary State.

Federalism, whether understood as pragmatic or quasi in the Indian context in view
of the division of powers between the Union and States, is accepted to be the basic
structure of the Constitution. A comparative study of the Constitutions of Federal
set up of the World do throw clear light on the division of powers between the
Centre and the States. Local Government or local bodies have been never treated to
have division of powers so as to be a tier in the Federal system. It is clear from the
18 The Law of Constitution by A.V. Dicey, p.LXXVII
19 AIR 1967 SC 1170
20 Federal Government, 1963 Edition, Prof. K.C. Wheare
21 "Constitutional Law of India" 4th Edition, Silver Jubilee Edition, H.M. Servai
22 Introduction to the Study of the Law of Constitution, A. V. Dicey
very functioning of the Federal Systems of the World. In Kesavananda Bharathi v.
State of Kerala23, the Apex Court no doubt held that Federalism is the basic
structure of the Constitution. In Smt.Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain 24, it
was held by the Apex Court:

"The reason of this restraint is not that the Indian Constitution recognizes any rigid
separation of powers. Plainly, it does not. The reason is that the concentration of
powers in any one organ may, by upsetting that fine balance between the three
organs, destroy the fundamental premises of a democratic Government to which
we are pledged. Sir Carleton K. Allen says that neither in Montesquieu's analysis
nor in Locke's are the Governmental powers conceived as the familiar trinity of
legislative, executive and judicial powers25. Montesquieu's "separation" took the
form not of impassable barriers and unalterable frontiers, but of mutual restraints,
or of what afterwards came to be known as "checks and balances". The three
organs must act in concert, not that their respective functions should not ever touch
one another. If this limitation is respected and preserved, " 26it is impossible for that
situation to arise which Locke and Montesquieu regarded as the eclipse of liberty -
the monopoly, or the disproportionate accumulation, of power in one sphere". In a
Federal System which distributes powers between three co-ordinate branches of
Government, though not rigidly, disputes regarding the limits of Constitutional
power have to be resolved by Courts and therefore, as observed by Paton, "the
distinction between judicial and other powers may be vital to the maintenance of
the Constitution itself27. Power is of an encroaching nature, wrote Madison in 'The

23 AIR 1973 SC 1461

24 AIR 1975 SC 2299
25 Law and Orders, 1965, Sir Carleton K. Allen , p.8
26 Para 688
27 A text book of Jurisprudence (1964), pg 295
Federalist'. The encroaching power which the Federalists feared most was the
legislative power and that, according to Madison, is the danger of all republics.

Cooperative Federalism
.
The Government of India Act, 1919 laid down the foundation of a federal form of
government in India. It introduced diarchy in India. A federal structure results in
the division of powers between the center and the units.
The Government of India Act, 1935 also laid down the provisions for a federal
form of government in India. It provided for the distribution of legislative powers
between the union and the provinces.
The Government of India Act, 1935, further provided for the cooperative
relationship between the provinces. Provisions were laid down to promote
harmony and to resolve the differences between the various provinces.
Sections 131, 132 and 133 of the Government of India Act, 1935 laid down
provisions for resolving the disputes related to waters. These dealt with the
problems relating to inter Province Rivers and river valleys.
Section 135 of the Government of India Act, 1935 laid down provisions for
the creation of councils dealing with the coordination between the various
provinces of the British India. The need for creating a cooperative relation between
the provinces was felt even before the independence.
 The Government of India Act, 1935 laid down the foundation for the
creation of a cooperative relationship in the federal structure. The present
Constitution has elaborated the principles which were laid down under the Act.
Cooperative federalism under Indian Constitution
There has been a felt need for a change from competitive to cooperative
relationship in the working of the federal constitution. Cooperative federalism
means that the center and the states share a horizontal relationship and neither is
above the other. This trend has been promoted by three factors:
(1) the exigencies of war when for national survival, national efforts takes
precedence over fine points of Centre state division of powers;
(2) technological advances means making of communication faster;
(3) the emergence of the concept of social welfare state in response to public
demands for various social services involving huge outlays which the governments
of the units could not meet by themselves out of their own resources.
The concept of cooperative federalism helps the federal system, with its divided
jurisdiction to act in unison. It minimizes friction and promotes cooperation among
the various constituent governments of the federal union so that they can pool their
resources to achieve certain desired national goals.
The Constitution of India provides various provisions dealing with the cooperative
aspect of federal structure. The constitution makers deliberately provided for such
features in the constitution in order to ensure the smooth working of the
government.
Full Faith and Credit Clause
Article 261 of the Constitution of India provides that full faith and credit shall be
given throughout the territory of India to all the public acts, records and judicial
proceedings of the Union and of every State. This is a step to promote cooperation
and faith between the center and the states.
Clause (2) empowers the Parliament to lay down by law the mode of proof as well
as the effect of acts and proceedings of one state in another state.
According to clause(3), final judgments or orders delivered or passed by civil
courts in any part of the territory of India can be executed anywhere in the country
according to law.
The full faith and credit clause promotes uniformity and unity throughout the
territory of India. It develops a sense of harmony and unity in the country. It
promotes cooperation between the states and the center and gives due credit to all
the public acts.
Inter State Council
Article 263 provides that the President may by order appoint an Inter state Council
if it appears to him that public interest would be served by its establishment. The
President may define the organization, procedure and duties of the Council.
In T.N. Cauvery Sangam v. Union of India[i], the Supreme Court has held that
once the Central government finds that the dispute referred to in the request
received from the State government cannot be settled by negotiations, it becomes
mandatory for the central government to constitute a tribunal and to refer the
dispute to it for adjudication. Further, if the central government fails to make such
a reference, the court may, on an application under Article 32 by an aggrieved party
issue mandamus to the central government to carry out its statutory obligation.
Sarkaria commission on Centre state relations has strongly recommended for the
establishment of an inter state council to effect coordination between states.
In Dabur India Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh[ii], the Supreme Court suggested
the setting up of a council under Article 263 to discuss and sort out problems of
central state taxation.
Zonal Councils
Zonal Councils have been introduced in India by the States Reorganisation Act,
1956. These councils have been created in order to bring the states of a particular
region in close conformity with each other. The Zonal Councils were created as an
instrument of intergovernmental consultation and cooperation mainly in socio
economic fields and also to arrest the growth of controversies and particularistic
tendencies among the various States.
There exists five Zonal Councils:
(1) Northern- comprising of the states of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh,
Rajasthan, Jammu and Kashmir and the union territories of Delhi and Chandigarh.
(2) Eastern- comprising of the states of Bihar, West Bengal, Orissa and Sikkim.
(3) Western- comprising of the states of Gujrat, Maharashtra, Goa and the union
territories of Daman and Diu and Dadra and Nagar Haveli.
(4) Central- comprising of the states of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh
(5) Southern- comprising of the states of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka
and Kerala and the union territory of Pondicherry.
Each State included in a zonal council enjoys a complete equality of status as:
(1) each state has an equality of representation in the council;
(2) each Chief Minister is to act as the Vice chairperson of the council in rotation
for a year;
(3) meetings of the council are to be held in each member state by rotation;
(4) the Chief Secretary of a member state is to act as the Secretary of the council
in rotation for one year.
A zonal council is an advisory body and has no executive or legislative function to
perform.
River water Disputes
Article 262 empowers the Parliament to provide by law for adjudication of any
dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution or control of the waters of
any interstate river or river valley.
A river board may be established by the Central government for advising the
governments interested in relation to matters concerning the regulation or
governance of an inter State river or river valley.
Planning and Finance
Planning makes inter governmental cooperation very necessary for in a federal
structure, the governments are not arranged hierarchically. The Directive Principles
of state Policy emphasize towards economic democracy, economic empowerment
of the weaker sections of the society, and a welfare state without which political
democracy does not have much meaning for the larger section of the poor people in
the country.
In 1950, the Government of India set up the Planning Commission with the Prime
Minister as its chairman. It has a vice president and a few central ministers and a
few non official experts as its members.
It has been assigned the following functions:
(1) to make an assessment of material, capital and human resources of the country
and investigate the possibilities of augmenting such of these resources as are found
to be deficient in relation to the nations requirements;
(2) to formulate a plan for the most effective and balanced utilization of the
countrys resources;
(3) on a determination of priorities, to define the stages in which the plan should
be carried out and propose the allocation of resources for the due completion of
each stage;
(4) to indicate the factors which are tending to retard economic development and
determine the conditions which in view of the current social and political situation,
should be established for the successful execution of the plan.
(5) to determine the nature of the machinery which will be necessary for securing
the successful implementation of each stage of the plan in all its aspects;
(6) to appraise from time to time the progress achieved in execution of each stage
of the plan and recommend the adjustments of policy and measures that such
appraisal might show to be necessary; and
(7) to make such interim and ancillary recommendations as might on a
consideration of the prevailing economic conditions, current policies, measures and
development programmes, or on an examination of such specific problems as
maybe referred to it for advice by the Central or State governments.

National Development Council

The National Development Council was established in 1952 in order provide a
mechanism to give sense of participation to the states in the planning processes. It
consists of the Prime Minister, the State Chief Ministers, representatives of the
Union Territories and members of the Planning Commission. In 1967, its
membership was enlarged by the addition of all members of the Union cabinet and
Chief Ministers of the Union Territories.
The functions of the council are to strengthen and mobilize the efforts and
resources of the nation in support of the plans; to promote common economic
policies in all vital spheres and to ensure the balanced and rapid development of all
parts of the country.
The council reviews the working of the plan from time to time, considers important
questions of social and economic policy affecting national development, and
recommends measures for the achievement of the aims and targets set out in the
national plan.
The Sarkaria Commission has suggested that it should be renamed as National
Economic and Development Council and be constituted under Article 263.
Other Bodies
(a) University Grants Commission: The University Grants Commission was
created under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. It gets its funds from
the center only. It grants fund both for maintenance and development to central
universities while only for maintenance to state universities.
(b) Other bodies to coordinate higher education: The Indian Medical Council,
created under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the All India Council for
Technical Education, formed under the All India Council for Technical Education
Act, 1987 are some of the bodies regulating and coordinating higher education in
India.
(c) Damodar Valley Corporation: The Damodar Valley Corporation is the joint
enterprise of center and the states of Bihar and West Bengal and has been
established under the provisions of Article 262 to develop the inter state valley of
the Damodar river for irrigation, power and flood control.
(d) Drugs Consultative Committee: Section 7 of the Drugs Act, 1940, empowers
the Central Government to constitute the Drugs Consultative Committee to advise
the central and state governments on any matter tending to secure uniformity
throughout India in the administration of the Act. The committee consists of two
representatives of the central government and one representative of each of the
state governments.
Working of cooperative federalism in India- analysis
The planning commission is very instrumental in providing funds and grants
to the states for the purpose of carrying on the centres development plans. The
grants are given under the provisions of Article 282. These grants are provided for
the implementation of the centres programmes in the states and are an effective
mode of controlling the states by the center. The States want greater grants from
the center but are unwilling to participate in increasing their funds by taxation. All
the states want to increase their shares of grants but do not want to take any
responsibility. It is required that the richer states have a greater share in raising
fund.
Further, the grant of funds by the center to the states is politically motivated
and the center tends to promote some states over the others. The states blame the
center for not providing adequate funds for the purpose of carrying on various
developmental programmes.
There are various conflicts regarding the sharing of river water. States do not
want to help the other water deficit states and there is requirement to make the
states to act for the overall benefits of the country and not act for their individual
interests.
As the Zonal Councils are only advisory bodies, they have not achieved
much. The Sarkaria Commission has expressed that the Zonal Councils have not
been able to fulfill their aims and objectives. It recommended that these should be
reactivated and appointed under the provisions of Article 263 to give them a
constitutional status. With a greater authority, the Zonal Councils will be able to
achieve more.
Position in other federations
The exigencies of war and financial crisis have lead to the development of
cooperative features in all the federal constitutions. A strong cooperative
relationship ensures that the nation is unified despite its federal nature.
In U.S.A., the intergovernmental cooperation has been built mostly around the
system of conditional central grants to the states for centrally sponsored schemes.
The Constitution of USA also provides for the inter governmental tax immunities
between the center and the states.
In Australia, financial difficulties of the state lead to the creation of
Commonwealth Grants Commission as well as the Australian Loan Council in
1927. The council comprises of the Prime ministers of center and states and meets
once a year. This arrangement has reduced competition among the governments for
funds. Further, expedients like conditional grants, loans by the center to the states,
income tax sharing between the center and the states with accent on state financial
needs, have also come to be adopted to promote inter governmental cooperation.
In Canada also, cooperative techniques like Central grants to provinces, delegation
of power by the center to the provinces, referential legislation have been
developed.
Thus, a cooperative relationship, in which the two powers are horizontally
arranged instead of hierarchically, has become a rule in all the federations as it
leads to the most productive outcome.
Conclusion
A cooperative relationship between the Centre and the States is the need of
the hour. Without a cooperative relationship, it will not be possible to move ahead
in the present economic world. The various technological advancements, economic
and trade activities and external aggressions across the world call for a cooperative
relationship between the center and the states in order to provide stability and
security in the country. The Sarkaria Commission report has also emphasized on
the creation of a strong center state relationship. Cooperative federalism is the
means to achieving a strong nation. There is requirement of giving greater
flexibility and authority to the National development council by constituting it
under the provisions of Article 263.
 Further, there should be greater involvement of the states in the planning
process and greater coordination in raising the funds for meeting the demands of
the developing economy.
Thus, a cooperative relationship is developed by the creation of various
councils which work for the benefit of the states as well as the center and also by
giving full credit to all the acts throughout the territory of India.
Suggestions
For a more effective cooperative federal relationship it is required that the
following steps are taken:
(a) The Zonal Councils should be reorganized under the provisions of Article 263
to give them a constitutional status, thus providing them with greater authority and
flexibility for proper functioning.
(b) The participation of the states in the planning commission and planning
process should be increased so as to ensure the formulation of more object oriented
plans which seek to promote the welfare of all the states.
(c) The states should be encouraged to take a more active part in raising the funds
for their developmental works. More grants should be provided to the poorer states
which cannot raise funds as compared to the richer states.
(d) The grants given by the center to the states should not be politically motivated
but based on the requirements of the states.
(e) The states should act for the overall development of the country and should
not act only for their own individual interests.
Thus, it is required that the cooperative federalism is encouraged over the
competitive relationship between the center and the states.
Conclusion
Given that this project is to highlight the essential features of federalism, I have
referred to precedents and research-papers to highlight the same without giving
much of my attention to the provisions within the Constitution of India for any
inspiration for the same. This, I would like to clarify here. The Indian Constitution
is federal in its nature, this, though is not expressly mentioned anywhere in the
Constitution of India, the provisions have been given in Part XI of the Indian
Constitution (Art. 245- Art. 263), Art. 246 gives rise to Schedule 7 of the Indian
Constitution, which clearly states the division of jurisdiction on the basis of subject
matter and the division of the states defines the jurisdiction in accordance to
territory. But then, the Constitution of India also gives the Union more power than
the States, (Art. 368), thus making it a federal government with the traits of an
unitary system in it. Thus, India does not have an absolutely unitary form of
Government.
Bibliography

1. KASHYAP SUBHASH C., Constitutional Law of India, Vol. 1, Universal law Publishing
Co. Pvt. Ltd.

2. BASU D.D., Commentary on Constitution of India, 8th Ed., Vol. 4, Wadhwa, Nagpur

3. JAIN M.P., Outlines of Indian Legal and Constitutional History, 6th Ed. Lexis Nexis
Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur.

4. Constituent Assembly Debates, VOL.VIII