Federalism as a Dynamic Process

The three descriptions, and where each fits

Cooperative. The Constitution's own machinery: article 263's Inter-State Council, article 280's Finance Commission, article 279A's Goods and Services Tax Council, and the Zonal Councils. The judicial statement is in Union of India v. Mohit Minerals Pvt Ltd, (2022) 10 SCC 700. Facts. A challenge to integrated goods and services tax on ocean freight and the question whether the Council's recommendations bind, and Held. They are persuasive and not binding because article 246A confers simultaneous power, describing Indian federalism as a dialogue in which the States and the Centre are equal participants. Why it matters here is that MU's 2019 proposition now has a Supreme Court formulation from 2022 to support it.

Competitive. States competing for investment, with the Union publishing rankings. This has no constitutional machinery, and its critics say it substitutes measurement for resources.

Coercive. Directions under articles 256, 257 and 365, conditional grants under article 282, the consent required for State borrowing under article 293(3), and the reservation of Bills under articles 200 and 201. None of these is unlawful and none of them is cooperation.

A complete answer uses all three, because MU's proposition names only the first.

The counter-proposition, stated fairly

The Union is not a partner among equals in law. State of West Bengal v. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 1241, Held. The Constitution is not traditionally federal in the sense of a compact between sovereign units, that the States were never sovereign, and that Parliament may compulsorily acquire land vested in a State; Subba Rao J. dissented. Why it matters here is that a dialogue between a body that can redraw the other's boundaries under article 3 and dismiss its government under article 356 is a dialogue of a particular kind.

And a great deal of what looks like cooperation is conditional funding. A State that joins a centrally sponsored scheme on the Union's terms has cooperated in one sense and complied in another.

The honest position is that both descriptions are true of different parts of the relationship, and a candidate who says so, with an example of each, has commented rather than agreed.

A worked example

How should the 2019 proposition be answered in twenty-five marks?

Open by taking the proposition seriously and locating its machinery. Articles 263, 279A and 280, and the Zonal Councils, are the constitutional expression of cooperation, and Mohit Minerals describes federalism as a dialogue between equal participants.

Then show the dynamism, which is the part that proves the proposition. Four movements: amendment in 1976, 1978, 1992 and 2016; judicial decision in 1994; fiscal practice through surcharges and cesses; and institutional change in 1990, 2015 and 2016.

Then qualify it, which is what "comment" requires. Cooperation is one of three descriptions. Competitive federalism has no machinery and coercive federalism has articles 256, 257, 282, 293(3) and 365. And the two levels are not equals in law: State of West Bengal holds the States were never sovereign, and article 3 lets Parliament redraw them.

Then conclude with a position. Indian federalism is dynamic, and its dynamism has come mostly from three sources the proposition does not mention: constitutional amendment, litigation, and the Union's control of revenue. Cooperation is the mode the Constitution provides for and not the mode by which most change has actually happened.

That is an answer with a thesis, and it uses the whole module rather than one chapter.

Distinctions

What it does NOT mean

It does not mean the text is irrelevant. Every movement described here operated through a provision, and the federal character is a basic feature that cannot be amended away.

It does not mean cooperation is a fiction. The Finance Commission's awards have been accepted by every government, and the Goods and Services Tax Council has taken hundreds of decisions by consensus.

It does not mean the direction of travel is settled. The 101st Amendment moved power to a shared institution and Mohit Minerals protected the States' own power within it, while surcharges moved revenue the other way, both in the same decade.

And it does not mean the proposition MU printed is wrong. It is right about the Constitution's design and incomplete about its practice, and saying exactly that is the comment the question asks for.

Quick revision

MU's 2019 proposition: federalism as a dynamic process of co-operation and shared action. True in three senses: the Constitution provides machinery in articles 263, 279A and 280; the balance has moved repeatedly; and the Supreme Court in Mohit Minerals 2022 described Indian federalism as a dialogue in which the States and the Centre are equal participants. Incomplete in a fourth: much of the movement has been coercive or competitive. Four modes of change: amendment (1976, 1978, 1992, 2016), judicial decision (S.R. Bommai 1994), fiscal practice (surcharges and cesses under article 271, conditional grants under article 282), and institutions (Inter-State Council 1990, the Planning Commission replaced 2015, the GST Council 2016). The counter-proposition: State of West Bengal v. Union of India holds that the States were never sovereign and that Parliament may acquire State property, and article 3 lets Parliament redraw a State without its consent.

Test yourself

1. In what three senses is MU's proposition true of India? The Constitution provides institutions for shared action in articles 263, 279A and 280; the actual balance has shifted repeatedly; and the Supreme Court has adopted the language, describing Indian federalism as a dialogue between equal participants.

2. Name the four modes by which the Indian federal balance has changed, with an example of each. Amendment, the 101st Amendment creating article 246A; judicial decision, S.R. Bommai making article 356 reviewable; fiscal practice, the growth of surcharges and cesses outside the divisible pool; and institutional change, the creation of the Goods and Services Tax Council.

3. Which description does the proposition omit, and what is its machinery? The coercive description, whose machinery is articles 256, 257 and 365, conditional grants under article 282, the Union's consent to State borrowing under article 293(3), and the reservation and withholding of assent under articles 200 and 201.

4. What is the constitutional answer to the claim that the two levels are equal participants? That they are equal participants in the shared field of article 246A, as Mohit Minerals held, but not equals generally: State of West Bengal v. Union of India holds the States were never sovereign, and article 3 permits Parliament to redraw or abolish a State without its consent.

5. Give one change in each direction from the last decade. Towards the States, article 246A and the holding in Mohit Minerals that the GST Council's recommendations do not bind. Towards the Centre, the growth of surcharges and cesses, which article 271 keeps wholly outside the divisible pool.

6. What is the thesis a good answer to this question should end with? That Indian federalism is genuinely dynamic, but that its dynamism has come chiefly from constitutional amendment, from litigation and from the Union's control of revenue, so cooperation is the mode the Constitution provides for rather than the mode by which most change has actually occurred.