Asymmetric Federalism

Two: the Fifth and Sixth Schedules. The Fifth Schedule governs Scheduled Areas in States other than the north eastern ones, with a Tribes Advisory Council and a power in the Governor to direct that an Act of Parliament or of the State Legislature shall not apply, or shall apply with modifications. The Sixth Schedule governs the tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram through Autonomous District Councils with their own legislative, executive and judicial powers.

Three: the National Capital Territory and Puducherry. Article 239AA gives Delhi a Legislative Assembly with power over the State and Concurrent Lists except public order, police and land, and article 239AB provides for the failure of constitutional machinery there. Article 239A permits Parliament to create a legislature for certain Union territories, which is Puducherry's basis.

Four: Union territories generally. Articles 239 to 241 place them under the President acting through an administrator, with Parliament legislating for them under article 246(4).

Five: article 370, until 2019. A whole constitutional relationship of its own, now ended.

A worked example

MU's February 2026 stem asks whether the asymmetrical arrangement is well suited to India, naming Delhi, the Sixth Schedule and the north east. How should the answer be built?

Open by defining the term and stating the claim. A symmetrical federation treats every unit alike; an asymmetrical one does not; India is asymmetrical in five distinct ways.

Take the three named examples in the order the paper names them, and give each its provision. Delhi: article 239AA, an Assembly with the State and Concurrent Lists except public order, police and land, and the services dispute settled by two Constitution Benches. The Sixth Schedule: Autonomous District Councils in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram with legislative, executive and judicial powers of their own, which is a fourth tier of government. The north east: articles 371A to 371H, of which 371A on Naga customary law and land is the strongest, since an Act of Parliament on those subjects does not apply to Nagaland unless the Assembly so decides.

Then take "other states", which the stem invites and most answers skip. Articles 371, 371D, 371E, 371-I and 371J cover Maharashtra, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Goa and the Hyderabad-Karnataka region, so asymmetry is not a north eastern phenomenon.

Then argue both sides. For: it answers real differences, it was the price of accession in two cases and of peace in another, and it has kept regions inside the Union that might not have stayed. Against: it complicates the scheme, it generates demands from States that have no special provision, and provisions justified as temporary have proved permanent.

And conclude with the Court's own words, which is the strongest close available. In In re Article 370 of the Constitution, decided on 11 December 2023, the Supreme Court described article 370 as a feature of asymmetric federalism and not of sovereignty, and upheld the abrogation on that footing. Asymmetry is therefore a recognised constitutional category in India and not merely a description used by writers.

The case

In In re Article 370 of the Constitution, decided on 11 December 2023. Facts. Challenges to Constitutional Order 272 of 5 August 2019, which applied the whole Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir and amended article 367 so that the reference to the Constituent Assembly of the State in the proviso to article 370(3) would be read as a reference to its Legislative Assembly; to Constitutional Order 273 of 6 August 2019 declaring that article 370 ceased to operate; and to the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act 2019, all done while the State was under President's rule with its Assembly dissolved.

Held, unanimously. The abrogation was valid though not every step of the route was. The State retained no element of internal sovereignty after the Instrument of Accession and the Proclamation of 25 November 1949, and article 370 was a feature of asymmetric federalism rather than of sovereignty. Article 370 was a temporary provision, as its historical context and its placement in Part XXI show. The power under article 370(3) did not cease when the State's Constituent Assembly was dissolved; only that Assembly's transitional power to recommend ceased, so the President could issue CO 273 unilaterally. But paragraph 2 of CO 272, which amended article 370 through article 367, was held ultra vires article 370(1)(d): an interpretation clause cannot be used to bypass the procedure for amending a provision, and what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. The rest of CO 272 is valid.

Why it matters here is the phrase. Asymmetric federalism is now a term the Supreme Court has used to characterise a constitutional provision, which is why a February 2026 candidate could be expected to use it.

Distinctions

What it does NOT mean

It does not mean the States with special provisions are more sovereign. In re Article 370 is express that asymmetry is not sovereignty, and no Indian State has ever been sovereign.

It does not mean asymmetry is a north eastern phenomenon. Maharashtra, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Goa, Karnataka, Delhi and Puducherry all have special provisions.

It does not mean a special provision cannot be removed. Article 370 was, and articles 371A to 371J are amendable under article 368 like anything else, subject to the basic structure.

And it does not mean the asymmetry is only about legislative power. Development boards, Governors' special responsibilities, employment quotas and separate Councils are all asymmetry, and only some of them touch the Lists.

Quick revision

Asymmetrical federalism: not every unit stands in the same relationship to the centre. Five Indian families. Named States: article 371 for Maharashtra and Gujarat, 371A Nagaland, 371B Assam, 371C Manipur, 371D and 371E Andhra Pradesh, 371F Sikkim, 371G Mizoram, 371H Arunachal Pradesh, 371-I Goa, 371J Hyderabad-Karnataka. Scheduled Areas: the Fifth Schedule, with a Tribes Advisory Council and the Governor's power to disapply or modify an Act. Tribal areas: the Sixth Schedule, with Autonomous District Councils exercising legislative, executive and judicial powers in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram. The capital and Puducherry: articles 239AA, 239AB and 239A. Union territories: articles 239 to 241 and 246(4). And article 370 until 2019. In re Article 370, 11 December 2023: article 370 was a feature of asymmetric federalism and not of sovereignty; it was temporary; the power under clause (3) survived the dissolution of the State's Constituent Assembly; but amending article 370 through article 367 was ultra vires.

Test yourself

1. Define symmetrical and asymmetrical federalism and say which India is. A symmetrical federation gives every unit the same powers and the same relationship with the centre; an asymmetrical one does not. India is asymmetrical, in five distinct families of provision.

2. Name the five families with one provision each. Special provisions for named States, article 371A; Scheduled Areas, the Fifth Schedule; north eastern tribal areas, the Sixth Schedule; the capital and Puducherry, article 239AA; and Union territories, article 239. Article 370 was a sixth until 2019.

3. Which is the strongest special provision, and why? Article 371A for Nagaland, because it provides that no Act of Parliament in respect of Naga religious or social practices, customary law and procedure, the administration of civil and criminal justice involving decisions according to Naga customary law, or ownership and transfer of land and its resources, shall apply to Nagaland unless the Legislative Assembly by resolution so decides.

4. What did In re Article 370 say about asymmetry? That the State of Jammu and Kashmir retained no element of internal sovereignty after the Instrument of Accession and the Proclamation of 25 November 1949, and that article 370 was a feature of asymmetric federalism rather than of sovereignty.

5. Which step of the 2019 route did the Court hold invalid, and on what principle? Paragraph 2 of Constitutional Order 272, which amended article 370 through the interpretation clause in article 367. An interpretation clause cannot be used to bypass the procedure prescribed for amending a provision, and what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.

6. Give one argument on each side of MU's stem. For: the units are genuinely unlike, and in Nagaland, Mizoram and Sikkim the special provisions were the price of accession or of peace, so asymmetry has kept regions inside the Union. Against: it complicates the scheme and generates demands from States with no special provision, and provisions justified as temporary have tended to become permanent.