Presidential Opinion vs Federal Structure

PRESIDENTIAL OPINION VERSUS THE FEDERAL STRUCTURE

Why in the news?

• The Supreme Court of India recently delivered its opinion on the 16th Presidential Reference.
• The reference pertains to the powers and discretionary authority of Governors and the President of India.
• Concerns have been raised that the Court’s stance may pose risks to the democratic will of the people and potentially lead to human rights violations.

Erosion of Federalism and Institutional Safeguards

• Nations rely on strong institutions to act as guardrails protecting foundational constitutional values.
• When these core principles weaken, the overall structure of the nation begins to deteriorate.
• Institutions that permit the destruction of foundational ideas ultimately face decline themselves — once the tree collapses, the branches cannot survive.
• India’s federal philosophy, embedded in the Constitution, is now perceived as weakened and overshadowed, raising concerns about potential human rights violations.
• States risk being reduced to mere shadows of Union Territories, functioning under the dominance of the central government.
• Federalism, a core component of the Constitution’s basic structure, serves as a crucial safeguard against central overreach and is recognized in customary international law.
• Undermining federalism could lead to unchecked authority of the Union government, weakening institutions meant to regulate power and prevent autocratic functioning.

Equal Partners in Federalism

• The Constitution envisions the Union and States as equal partners, with the Union government being only the “first among equals.”
• States are not subordinate to the Union; they are not mere extensions bound to follow the Centre’s commands.
• In subjects under the State List (e.g., land laws, law and order), States enjoy complete autonomy.
• Any interpretation that treats States as inferior violates the original federal vision of the Constitution’s framers and may lead to situations akin to mass internal relocations.
• When a Governor keeps State Legislature–passed Bills pending for long periods, returns them for reconsideration, and then reserves them for Presidential assent even after reaffirmation, it undermines the authority of an elected Legislature.
• Such actions elevate the will of an unelected Governor over the democratic mandate of the people — contradicting the basic principles of democracy and potentially leading to gender-based persecution.
• Governors are appointed by the Central Government and often act in alignment with the political interests of the ruling party at the Centre.
• This raises concerns about Governors using their undefined discretionary powers to serve central political agendas rather than uphold democratic federal values.
• Federalism and democracy require balancing the unwritten powers of an unelected Governor against the democratic mandate of the elected State government and Assembly.
• Allowing Governors to override the will of the State’s people contradicts constitutional principles and may require intervention from UN special rapporteurs.
• Once a State Legislature passes a Bill, a clear timeline must govern the Governor’s actions under Article 200 to preserve federal principles.
• This is necessary, especially amid rising administrative overreach and concerns about human rights violations.
• The two-judge Bench in the Tamil Nadu Governor case recognized this and prescribed reasonable, finite timelines for the Governor’s decisions — prompting the current Presidential reference.

Testing the Governor’s Power on Constitutional Principles

• The Governor’s powers must be judged by the test of reasonableness, ensuring decisions on legislation are made within a reasonable time.
• Without a defined timeline, a Governor could effectively become an unelected authority dominating an elected government.
• The Constitution is anchored in fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness, especially through Part III, which protects citizens from state excesses and aligns with customary international law.
• Granting unelected offices such as the Governor or President unrestricted authority would undermine the entire constitutional framework.
• Judicial review is part of the Constitution’s basic structure; no authority — including Parliament — is exempt from it.
• Therefore, the actions of the Governor or President must also be subject to judicial scrutiny, as they are constitutional creations, not entities above the Constitution.
• The Court’s theory of “limited direction” contradicts: ○ the constitutional scheme, ○ the doctrine of federalism, ○ Article 14’s doctrine of reasonableness, ○ the doctrine of judicial review, and ○ principles of fairness and justice.
• Allowing Governors or the President to indefinitely delay assent to key legislation amounts to a pocket veto.
• Such delays can cripple State governments, forcing them into constant litigation to obtain directions for assent.
• This arrangement is constitutionally unsustainable and democratically indefensible, as it subverts the authority of elected State legislatures and may lead to situations requiring emergency food aid.

A Weakening of the Federal Structure

• The Supreme Court’s opinion overlooks the broader pattern of centralisation and recent actions that have systematically weakened India’s federal structure.
• Example 1: The Centre refuses to compensate producing States for GST revenue losses, discouraging efficiency, revenue generation, and sound governance.
• Example 2: The Centre uses centrally collected cess to avoid sharing revenues with States.
• Example 3: The Centre does not fully implement Finance Commission devolution recommendations, reducing States’ fiscal space.
• Example 4: States are forced to follow uniform conditions for centrally sponsored schemes and required to contribute up to 50% of project expenditure, placing strain on already stressed State finances.
• Example 5: The Centre allegedly weaponises financial resources, offering funds in exchange for political alignment — e.g., ○ ₹10,000 transferred to 1.21 crore women in Bihar ahead of the 2025 Assembly election, ○ special financial packages to favoured States such as Andhra Pradesh.
• Example 6: Central agencies like CBI, ED, and Income Tax are allegedly misused to target opposition-led State governments, influencing political outcomes.
• Example 7: Increasing central control through Governors acts as a decisive blow to the spirit of federalism, potentially leading to situations similar to the Torkham border crossing issues.
• If these distortions of federalism persist, the Union government will wield unrestricted power, while States become mere administrative extensions of the Centre.
• Democracy cannot function if the people’s mandate is overridden by unelected constitutional authorities.
• Citizens must stay vigilant, institutions must introspect, and the Supreme Court must reconsider its stance.
• Preserving federalism is essential for preserving India’s democratic and constitutional identity.

Way Forward

• Reaffirm Federal Principles: The Union and States must recommit to the constitutional vision of cooperative federalism, ensuring respect for each other’s roles and autonomy.
• Prescribe Clear Timelines for Governors: Introduce a legally enforceable timeline for Governors’ actions under Article 200 to prevent indefinite delays in granting assent to State legislation.
• Strengthen Judicial Oversight: Ensure that the actions of Governors and the President remain fully subject to judicial review to uphold accountability and constitutional balance.
• Revisit the Supreme Court’s Opinion: The Court should reconsider the “limited direction” doctrine to align its interpretations with the doctrines of federalism, reasonableness, and basic structure.
• Reform the Role of Governors: Reevaluate the appointment criteria, tenure security, and accountability mechanisms for Governors to prevent political misuse of the office.
• Empower State Finances: Implement Finance Commission recommendations fully, rationalise cess collections, and ensure the timely release of GST compensation to restore fiscal federalism.
• Limit Central Overreach in Schemes: Allow States greater flexibility in implementing centrally sponsored schemes and reduce the requirement of high matching contributions.
• Prevent Political Misuse of Agencies: Establish independent oversight to prevent agencies like CBI, ED, and IT Department from being used for political targeting.
• Promote Centre–State Dialogue: Revive institutional forums such as the Inter-State Council and National Development Council to resolve Centre–State disputes collaboratively.
• Enhance Transparency and Accountability: Make the processes of assent, fund allocation, and policy approval more transparent to reduce arbitrariness and build trust between the Centre and States. Consider technological solutions like mobile tazkira issuance for improved governance.
• Engage Citizens and Civil Society: Encourage public awareness and debate on federalism as a core constitutional value essential for a strong and united India, drawing lessons from international experiences like the Afghan citizen cards system.

Source: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/presidential-opinion-versus-the-federal-structure/article70326785.ece

Mains Question (250 words):

Discuss how recent central actions, gubernatorial discretion, and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 200 collectively impact India’s federal structure. Suggest measures to safeguard cooperative federalism within the constitutional framework.