Constitution of India- Whether Federal or Unitary

It has been the matter of debate among the scholars that whether the constitution of India is completely
federal or unitary in nature. But actually Indian constitution contains both features of a federal
constitution and unitary constitution. But for the very clear picture of this conclusion first of all we have to
know that what is the federal constitution and what is unitary constitution. What feature of Indian
constitution makes it federal or what features makes it unitary.

Federal Constitution:

In a federal set up there is a two tier of Government with well assigned powers and functions. In
this system the central government and the governments of the units act within a well defined
sphere, co-ordinate and at the same time act independently. The federal polity, in other words,
provides a constitutional device for bringing unity in diversity and for the achievement of
common national goals. K.C. Wheare defines federal government as an association of states,
which has been formed for certain common purposes, but in which the member states retain a
large measure of their original independence. A federal government exists when the powers of
the government for a community are divided substantially according to a principle that there is a
single independent authority for the whole area in respect of some matters and there are
independent regional authorities for other matters, each set of authorities being co-ordinate to
and subordinate to the others within its own sphere. The Constitution of India has adopted
federal features; though it does not, in fact, claim that it establishes a federation. The question
whether the Indian Constitution could be called a federal constitution troubled the minds of the
members of the Constituent Assembly. This question cannot be answered without going into the
meaning of federalism and the essential features that are evident in federal state.

Unitary Constitution

A unitary system is governed constitutionally as one single unit, with one constitutionally created
legislature. All power is top down. A unitary state is a sovereign state governed as one single unit in which
the central government is supreme and any administrative divisions (sub national units) exercise only
powers that the central government chooses to delegate.

Federal Features of Indian Constitution

Supremacy of the Constitution: This is one of the federal features of the Indian constitution. The
supremacy of the constitution means that both, the Union and the State Governments, shall operate
within the limits set by the Constitution. And both the union government and the central government
derive their powers from the constitution.Written Constitution The most important feature of a
federation is that its constitution should be a written one. The Constitution of India is a written
constitution is the most elaborate Constitution of the world.
Rigid Constitution: The constitution of India is a rigid constitution and this is one of the basic features
of federal constitution. The procedure of amending the Constitution in a federal system is normally rigid.
Indian Constitution provides that some amendments require a special majority. Such an amendment has
to be passed by majority of total members of each house of the Parliament as well as by two-thirds
majority of the members present and voting there in. However, in addition to this process, some
amendments must be approved by at least 50% of the states. After this procedure the amendment is
signed by the head of the state i.e; the President. Since in India important amendments can be amended
through this procedure Hence, Indian Constitution has been rightly called a rigid constitution.
Division of Powers:
In Indian constitution the powers of state and centre are clearly defined and there are very clear limits of
both the centre and the state for law making powers. Our constitution enumerates three lists, viz. the
Union, the State and the Concurrent List. The Union List consists of 97 subjects of national importance
such as Defence, Railways, Post and Telegraph, etc. The State List consists of 66 subjects of local interest
such as Public Health, Police etc. The Concurrent List has 47 subjects important to both the Union and
the State such as Electricity, Trade Union, Economic and Social Planning, etc.
Supremacy of the Judiciary: Supremacy of judiciary is another very important feature of a federal
state where there is an independent judiciary to interpret the Constitution and to maintain its sanctity.
The Supreme Court of India has the original jurisdiction to settle disputes between the Union and the
States. It can declare a law as unconstitutional, if it contravenes any provision of the Constitution.
Unitary Features of Indian Constitution:
In spite of the fact that the Indian Constitution establishes a federal structure, it is indeed very difficult to
put the Indian Constitution in the category of a true federation. The following provision of Indian
constitution makes it unitary
Union of States; Article I of the Constitution describes India as a ‘Union of States’, which implies two
things: firstly, it is not the result of an agreement among the States and secondly, the States have no
freedom to secede or separate from the Union. Besides, the Constitution of the Union and the States is a
single framework from which neither can get out and within which they must function. The federation is a
union because it is indestructible and helps to maintain the unity of the country.
Appointment of Governor: Art 155 and 156 provide that the Governor, who is the constitutional head
of a State, is to be appointed by the President and stays only until the pleasure of the President  The
Centre may take over the administration of the State on the recommendations of the Governor or
otherwise. In other words, Governor is the agent of the Centre in the States. The working of Indian federal
system clearly reveals that the Governor has acted more as centre’s representative than as the head of the
State. This enables the Union government to exercise control over the State administration.
Representation in the Legislature: The equality of units in a federation is best guaranteed by their
equal representation in the Uppers House of the federal legislature (Parliament). However, this is not
applicable in case of Indian States. They have unequal representation in the Rajya Sabha. In a true
federation such as that of United State of America every State irrespective of their size in terms of area or
population it sends two representatives in the upper House i.e. Senate.
Appointment on Key Positions: In addition to all this, all important appointments such as the Chief
Election Commissioner, the Comptroller and Auditor General are made by the Union Government.
Besides, there is single citizenship. There is no provision for separate Constitutions for the states. The
States cannot propose amendments to, the Constitution. As such amendments can only be made by the
Union Parliament. All India Services such as IAS and IPS have been created which are kept under the
control of the Union. In financial matters too, the States depend upon the Union to a great extent. The
States do not possess adequate financial resources to meet their requirements. During Financial
Emergency, the Center exercises full control over the State’s finances.
Disturbances in the state:  In case of disturbances in any State or part thereof, the Union Government
is empowered to depute Central Force in the State or to the disturbed part of the State. Also, the
Parliament, by law may increase or decrease the area of any State and may alter its name and boundaries.
Unified Judiciary: The federal principle envisages a dual system of Courts. But, in India we have
unified Judiciary with the Supreme Court at the apex.
Power to make laws: The Constitution of India empowered the central government to make laws on
the subjects in the state list. It is exercised only on the matters of national importance and that too if the
Rajya Sabha agrees with 2/3 majority. The constitution establishes a strong Centre by assigning all-
important subjects to the Centre as per the Union List. The State Governments have very limited powers.
Power to form new states and to change existing boundaries:
Under Art 3, center can change the boundaries of existing states and can carve out new states. This should
be seen in the perspective of the historical situation at the time of independence. At that time there were
no independent states. There were only provinces that were formed by the British based on administrative
convenience. At that time States were artificially created and a provision to alter the boundaries and to
create new states was kept so that appropriate changes could be made as per requirement. It should be
noted that British India did not have states similar to the States in the USA.
 Emergency Provisions:
The President of India can declare three different types of emergency under article 352, article 356 and
article 360 for an act of foreign aggression or internal armed rebellion, failure of constitutional machinery
in a state and financial emergency respectively.. During the operation of an emergency, the powers of the
State Governments are greatly curtailed and the Union Government becomes all in all.

Conclusion
From the above discussion it is seen that the constitution of India neither is the complete federation nor it
is completely unitary. It has the features of both. Sir Ivor Jennings was of the view that India has a
federation with a strong centralizing policy. In the words of D.D.Basu, the Constitution of India is neither
purely federal nor unitary, but is a combination of both. It is a union or a composite of a novel type. It is
often defined to be quasi-federal in nature. Thus we can safely say that It is primarly Unitary having some
unitary features. 

 Nature of Indian Constitution (Paper 2, Section 3, Unit 1) - 3

0 comments Posted by Admin - APPSC Group 1 at 8:32 AM

Typically, democratic constitutions are classified into two categories - Unitary and Federal. In a
unitary constitution, all the powers are concentrated in a central authority. The states or the
constituents of the country are subordinate to such central authority. In a federal constitution,
powers are distributed among the center and the states. States are not subordinates of the center.
According to Prof. Wheare, the constitutions of USA, Australia, and Switzerland are prime
examples of a federal constitution. 
 
Dr. Ambedkar has categorically said in Constituent Assembly discussions that notwithstanding
certain provisions that centralize the powers, Indian Constitution is essentially federal. Prof.
Wheare and some other academicians, however, are hesitant in calling it a federal constitution
and prefer to term it as "quasi-federal" or "federal with strong centralizing tendency".

Though, it should be noted that even prof. Wheare accepts the existence of certain provisions in
the American constitution, such as dependence of Senate on States, that are contrary to federal
character. However, he says that while the principles of federalism should be rigid, the
terminology of "federal constitution" should be wide. A constitution should be called federal if it
displays federal character predominantly.

The following are the defining features of federalism.

1. Distribution of Powers between center and states.

2. Supremacy of the Constitution.
3. Written Constitution.
4. Rigidity of the Constitution.
5. Independent Judiciary.

All the above characteristics are present in the Indian Constitution. However, there are certain
provisions that affect its federal character.

1. Appointment of the Governor of a State

Art 155 and 156 provide that the Governor, who is the constitutional head of a State, is to be
appointed by the President and stays only until the pleasure of the President. Further, that the
Governor can send the laws made by the state for assent from the President, who can veto the
law. 
It should be noted that Governor is only a ceremonial held and he works on the advice of council
of ministers. In past 50 yrs, there has been only one case (re Kerala Education Bill), where
amendments to a state law were asked by the center and that too after the opinion of the Supreme
Court. Thus, it does not tarnish the federal character and states are quite free from outside
control.

2. Power of the parliament to make laws on subjects in the State list.

Under art 249, center is empowered to make laws on subjects in the state list. On the face of it, it
looks a direct assault on the power of the states. However, this power is not unlimited. It is
exercised only on the matters of national importance and that too if the Rajya Sabha agrees with
2/3 majority. It should be noted that Rajya Sabha is nothing but the representative of the states.
So an approval by Rajya Sabha means that States themselves are giving the power to the center
 to make law on that subject.

3. Power to form new states and to change existing boundaries

Under Art 3, center can change the boundaries of existing states and can carve out new states.
This should be seen in the perspective of the historical situation at the time of independence. At
that time there were no independent states. There were only provinces that were formed by the
British based on administrative convenience. At that time States were artificially created and a
provision to alter the boundaries and to create new states was kept so that appropriate changes
could be made as per requirement. It should be noted that British India did not have states similar
to the States in the USA.

4. Emergency Provisions
Center has the power to take complete control of the State in the following 3 situations :
1. An act of foreign aggression or internal armed rebellion (Art 352) 
2. Failure of constitutional machinery in a state (art 356)
3. Financial Emergency (art 360)
In all the above cases, an elected state government can lose control of the state and a central rule
can be established. In the first case, it is very clear that such a provision is not only justified but
necessary to protect the existence of a state. A state cannot be left alone to defend itself from
outside aggression. In the third case also, it is justified because a financial emergency could
cause severe stress among the population, plunge the country into chaos and jeopardize the
existence of the whole country. Such provisions exist even in USA. The second provision is most
controversial. It gives the center the power to take over the control of a state. However, such an
action can be taken only upon the advice of the governor and such an advice is not beyond the
purview of the Supreme Court. In a recent case, Supreme court ruled that the imposition of
Presidential rule in the state of Bihar was unconstitutional.

Thus, it can be safely said that Indian Constitution is primarily federal in nature even though it
has unique features that enable it to assume unitary features upon the time of need.  

Links to this post  

Labels: Indian Constitution, paper 2

You might also like:

 Nature of Indian Constitution (Paper 2, Section 3, Unit 1) - 2
 Nature of Indian Constitution (Paper 2, Section 3, Unit 1)
 Constitution of India - whether Federal or Unitary
 Indian Constitution - borrowed elements
 Civil Services Preliminary Exam - 2009 Paper
LinkWithin

Reference Books for Group 1 Mains

0 comments Posted by Admin - APPSC Group 1 at 9:52 AM

PAPER - I

1. Hindu News Paper

2. Frontline
3. Outlook Magazine
4. Competition Success Review
5. Yojana
6. Udyoga Sopanam (Telugu Medium)
7. Vivek (Telugu Medium)

PAPER – II: Section I

History and Cultural Heritage of India with Emphasis on 20th Century History of India
1. R.C. Majumdar – Raya Choudhari & Datta – Advanced History of India.
2. D.D. Kosambi – An Historical Outline of Indian Culture and History.
3. A.R. Desai – Social Background of Indian Nationalism.
4. Sumit Sarkar – Writing Social History.
5. S.C. RayaChoudhary – Social Cultural and Economic History of India. (Earliest Times to
Present Times)
6. M.N.Srinivas – Social Change in Modern India.
7. Bipin Chandra – Rise and Growth of Economic Nationalism.
8. K.N. Panikar – Culture and Ideology in Colonial India.
9. Kenneth Jones – Social and Religious Reform Movement in India.
10. V.A. Narayan – Social Reforms in Modern India.
11. Tarachand – A History of the Freedom Movement in India Vol. I & II.
12. Sumit Sarkar – Modern India.
13. A.R. Desai – Peasants Struggle in India.
14. R.S. Sarma- Indian Feudalism – Comprehensive History of India – Vol. 10 to 12.
15. N.V. Bhattacharya – Medieval Movements in India.
16. Romila Thapar – Ancient Indian Social History.
17. K.A. Nilakanta Sastry – A History of South India.
18. Romila Thapar – History of India – Vol. I & II.
19. R.S. Sharma – Material Culture and Social Formation in Ancient India.
20. A.L. Bashom – The Cultural History of India.
21. A.L. Srivastavan – History of India from 1000 to 1707.
22. S.R. Sharma – Mughul Rule in India.
23. J.L. Mehta – Advanced Studies in the History of Medieval India – Vol. I & II.
24. Bipin Chandra _ Nationalisam and Colonialism in Modern India.
25. Omredt Gail – Cultural Revolt in a Colonial Society. The Non-Brahman movement in
Western India.
26. V. Geetha and Rajadurai – Towards Non-Brahmin Millenium.
27. O.Hanlon Rosalind – Caste, Conflict and Ideology, Mahatma Jyotirao Phule and Low Caste
Protest in 
                                       19th Century Western India.
28. Dananjaya Keer – Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s Life History.
29. R.P.Tripathi & A.R. Desai – Social Background of Indian Nationalism.
30. Bipin Chandra – Essays in Contemporary India.

PAPER – II: Section II

Social and Cultural History of Andhra Pradesh.

1. S.C. Raya Choudhari – Social Cultural and Economic History of India. (Earliest Times to
Present Times)
2. R.C. Majumdar – Raa Choudhari and Datta – Advanced History of India.
3. A.R. Desai – Social Background of Indian Nationalism.
4. Sumit Sarkar – Writing Social History.
5. M.N. Srinivas – Social Change in Modern India.
6. V.A. Narayan – Social Reforms in Modern India.
7. Kenneth Jones – Social and Religious Reform Movement in India.
8. K.A. Nilakanta Sastry – A History of South India.
9. K. Satyanarayana – A Study of History and Culture of Andhras Vol. I & II.
10. K. Balendu Sekharan – The Andhras through the Ages.
11. B.V. Krishna Rao - Early Dynasties of Andhra Desa.
12. V. Ramakrishna – Social Reforms in Andhra.
13. N. Venkata Ramanaiah – Andhrula Charitra (Telugu)
14. M. RamaRao – Satavahana Sanchika (Telugu)
15. M.V. Ramanaiah – Eastern Chalukyas of Vengi.
16. D.C. Ganguly- Eastern Chalukyas.
17. B.S.L. Hanumantha Rao – Indian History and Culture – Vol. I & II.
18. Bhandakar – Early History of the Deccan.
19. Gopala Chary – Early History of the Andhra Country.
20. Suravaram Pratap Reddy – Andhrula Sanghika Charitra (Telugu).
21. P.V. Parabrahma Sastry – Kakatiyas.
22. P. Raghunadha Rao – History of Modern Andhra Pradesh.
23. Sarojini Regani – Nizam British Relations – 1724 – 1857.
24. Sarojini Regani – High Lights of Freedom Movement in Andhra Pradesh.
25. A.V. Koti Reddy – Andhra Pradesh History – Samuskruthi.
26. M. Venkata rangaiah – The Freedom struggle in Andhra Pradesh – Vol. I & II.
27. G.V. Subba Rao – The Freedom Struggle in Hyderabad State – Vol. I to IV.
28. Y. Balarama Murthy – Andhrula Samkshipta Charitra (Telugu).
29. Madapati Hanumantha Rao - Telangana Andhrodyamamu (Telugu) Vol. I & II.
30. D. Ramanuja Rao – Telangana Jateeyodhyamamulu (Telugu).
31. Veladurthy Manikya Rao – Hydserabadlo Swatantrodhyamamu (Telugu).

PAPER – II: Section III

1. Aravind S. Indian Administration – Himalaya Publishing House, New Delhi, 1992.

2. Austin Graneille, Working Democratic Constitution: The Indian Experience, Oxford 1999.
3. Avasti and Avasti, Indian Administration, Lakshmi Narain Agarwal, Agra, 1998.
4. Basu, D.D.., An introduction to the Constitution of India, Prentice Hall, New Delhi, 2006.
5. General Studies Manual, Tata Mc.Graw Hills, New Delhi, 2008.
6. Gapta M.C.and Kamal N. KABRA. Public Administration in India. Gyan Publishing House,
New Delhi,
    1999.
7. Hoshiar Singh and Mohinder Singh, Public Administration in India, Sterling Publishes, New
Delhi, 1995.
8. Jam R.B. Public Administration in India: 21st Century Challenges for Good Governance,
9. Deep and Deep Publications, New Delhi, 2002.
10. Krishna K. Tummala, Public Administration in India, Allied Publishers Limited, New Delhi,
1996.
11. Kashyap Subhash, C. Our Constitution, NBT, New Delhi, 1994.
12. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Tata Mc.Graw Hills, New Delhi, 2008.
13. Padma Ramachandran, Public Administration in India, National Book Trust, New Delhi,
1995.
14. Premalatha Sharma, Issues in Indian Administration, Mangaldeep Publications, Jaipur, 1998.
15. Ramesh K. Arora, Indian Administration: Perceptions and Perspectives, Aalekh Publications,
2000.
16. Ramesh K. Arora and Rajni Goyal, Indian Public Administration, Institution and Issues,
Wishwa Prakashan, New Delhi, 2004.
17. Robert I., Hardgray, Indian Government and Politics, Harcour Drace, 1975.
18. Rajani Kothari, Polities in India, Orient Longman, Delhi, 1970.
19. Saran Parmatma and Meenakshi, Public Administration in India, Mudranalaya Publishers,
New Delhi,
      1997.
20. Siwach. J.R. Dynamics of Indian Government and Politics, Sterling, New Delhi, 1985.
21. Sriram Maheshwari, Indian Administration, Orient Longman, New Delhi, 2000.
22. The Constitution of India, Government of India, 2006.

PAPER – III:

1. J.C. Dhingra, Indian Economy: Environment & Policy, Sultan Chand, New Delhi (recent Edn.,
say2007) Or any text book on Indian Economy written by say Dutt & Sindaram, Mishra & Puri
or Agarwal.

2. For recent data & policy changes, above book is to be complemented by the Govt. of India,
Economic Survey 2007-08, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi (recent edn. Say 2008) (The above
books cover 1/3rd of the syllabus on Indian Economy).

3. Govt. of A.P. Human Development Report 2007, A.P. CESS, Begumpet, Hyderabad, 2008.
4. RSRao et al (Eds), Fifty Years of AP 1956-2006, CDR & Communication, Rd 3,
Himayathnagar,
    Hyderabad, 2006.
5. VH Rao et al (eds), AP at Fifty, CDR & Communication, Rd 3, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad,
1998.
6. CH Hanumantha Rao & Mahendra Dev(eds), AP Development, Economic Reforms &
ChallengesAhead,     CESS, Begumpet, Hyderabad, 2004.
7. Y.V. Krishna Rao & S Subrahmanyam (Eeds), Development of AP 1956-01 – A Study of
Regional 
    Disparities, NER Research Centre, Vishalandhra Publishers, Hyderabad, 22.
8. Dynamics of AP Economy vis-à-vis Indian Economy with Focus on Regional Disparities,
NAD (to be 
    published).

The above 3 to 8 works are to be supplemented by Statistical Abstract of AP (recent year) &
Socio-Economic Survey of AP, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad, 2007-08.

PAPER – IV: Section I and III:

1. Science & Technology – 2007 : Publication - Hindu Publications.

2. Science & Technology of Nano materials : Author – N . Balakrishna Rao, K. Krishna Reddy :
Publication:  Campus Book International
3. Sustainable Development and Environment : Author: A.K. De, N.C. Gupta Publication:
Cosmo   
     Publications
4. Text Book of Environmental Science & Technology : Author: Dr. M. Anji Reddy Publication:
B.S.
     Publications
5. Introduction to Environmental Engineering and Science : Author: Gilbert M. Masters
6. Environmental Studies : Author: Manoj Tiwari Publication: J.K. International publishing
house Pvt. Ltd.

Section II

General awareness with the modern trends in life sciences

Unit – I
1. Industrial Microbiology by L.E. Casida; New age international pvt. Ltd.
2. Fermentation Technology by Stanbury & Whitaker, Butterworth – Heinemann
3. Industrial Microbiology by Presscott & Donn; Tata Mc Graw Hill Publishing Ltd.
4. Elements of Biotechnology by – P.K. Gupta; Rastogi .co
Unit – II
1. Text book of Botany by A.C. Datta
2. Introductory Botany by Ashok Bindre & P.C.Pande; Rastogi Publishing.
3. Text book of Animal Husbandry by E.C. Banerjee.
Unit – III
1. Biotechnology – 4 by S. Mahesh, A.B. Vedamurthy
2. Understanding Biotechnology by Aluizio Borem, Fabricio R. Santosh & David E. Bensen.
3. Molecular Biotechnology by S.B. Primrose; Blackwell Scientific Publishers.
4. Plant tissue Culture – Theory and practice by S.S. Bhojwani, M.R. Razdan.
Unit – IV
1. Text book of Microbiology by Pelczar; TMH
2. Medical Microbiology by Anantanarayana
3. Microbiology by Panjarathinam
4. Essentials of Biology and Biotechnology by Bir Bhadine; Pharma Book Syndicate.
 Unit – V
1. Immunology by Kubay, Goldby, Kindy, Obsorne
2. Immunology by Riott
3. Immunology by Schamu’s outlines
4. Lecture note on Immunology by Gordon Reeves, Ian Todd, Blackweel Publishers.

PAPER – V:

Data Interpretation and Problem Solving

1. Fundamentals of Mathematical Statistics by S.C. Gupta and V.K. Kapoor – Sultan Chand &
Sons.
2. Statistical Methods by S.P. Gupta – Sultan Chand & Sons.
3. Programmed Statistics (Questions – Answers) by B.L. Agarwal – New Age International
Publishers.
4. Statistics by Elhance.
5. Quantitative Aptitude by R.S. Aggarwal – S. Chand & Co.
6. Analytical Reasoning by M.K. Panden – BSC Publication.

Links to this post  

Labels: appsc group 1, mains, reference books

You might also like:

 Free Download 6th to 12th Class NCERT Text Books
 Current Affairs - October 1-15, 2008 Sports & Miscellaneous
 AP mourns YSRs demise
 Commonwealth Games 2010
 Current Affairs - October 1-15, 2008 National Events
LinkWithin

Nature of Indian Constitution (Paper 2, Section 3, Unit 1) - 2

0 comments Posted by Admin - APPSC Group 1 at 8:27 AM

Introduction

The Constitution of India is not an end but a means to an end, not mere democracy as a political project
but a socio-juridical process which opens up through a humanist, radical social order, the opportunity to
unfold the full personhood of every citizen. The Indian Federalism is unique in nature and is tailored
according to the specific needs of the country. Federalism is a basic feature of the Constitution of India in
which the Union of India is permanent and indestructible. Both the Centre and the States are co-operating
and coordinating institutions having independence and ought to exercise their respective powers with
mutual adjustment, respect, understanding and accommodation. Tension and conflict of the interests of
the Centre and the respective units is an integral part of federalism. Prevention as well as amelioration of
conflicts is necessary. Thus, the Indian federalism was devised with a strong Centre. Federalism with a
strong Centre was inevitable as the framers of the Indian Constitution were aware that there were
economic disparities as several areas of India were economically as well as industrially far behind in
comparison to others. The nation was committed to a socio economic revolution not only to secure the
basic needs of the common man and economic unity of the country but also to bring about a fundamental
change in the structure of Indian society in accordance with the egalitarian principles. With these
considerations in mind the Constitution makers devised the Indian federation with a strong Union.

Federalism Defined
Federalism constitutes a complex governmental mechanism for the governance of a country. It seeks to
draw a balance between the forces working in favour of concentration of power in the Centre and those
urging a dispersal of it in a number of units. A federal Constitution envisages a demarcation of
governmental functions and powers between the Centre and the regions by the sanction of the
Constitution, which is a written document. From this follows two necessary consequences- 
(i) That the invasion by one level of government on the area assigned to the other level of the government
is a breach of the Constitution.
(ii) That any breach of the Constitution is a justifiable issue to be determined by the Courts as each level of
government functions within the area assigned to it by the Constitution.

K.C. Wheare defines federal government as an association of states, which has been formed for certain
common purposes, but in which the member states retain a large measure of their original independence.
A federal government exists when the powers of the government for a community are divided
substantially according to a principle that there is a single independent authority for the whole area in
respect of some matters and there are independent regional authorities for other matters, each set of
authorities being co-ordinate to and subordinate to the others within its own sphere. The framers of the
Indian Constitution attempted to avoid the difficulties faced by the federal Constitutions of U.S.A, Canada
and Australia and incorporate certain unique features in the working of the Indian Constitution. Thus, our
Constitution contains certain novel provisions suited to the Indian conditions. The doubt which emerges
about the federal nature of the Indian Constitution is the powers of intervention in the affairs of the states
given to the Central Government by the Constitution According to Wheare, in practice the Constitution of
India is quasi-federal in nature and not strictly federal. Sir Ivor Jennings was of the view that India has a
federation with a strong centralizing policy. In the words of D.D.Basu The Constitution of India is neither
purely federal nor unitary, but is a combination of both. It is a union or a composite of a novel type.

The Indian Constitution is not only regarded as Federal or Unitary in the strict sense of the terms. It is
often defined to be quasi-federal in nature also. Throughout the Constitution, emphasis is laid on the fact
that India is a single united nation. India is described as a Union of States and is constituted into a
sovereign, secular, socialist, democratic republic.

As opposed to this is the opinion of some scholars who regard the Indian Constitution to be unitary in
nature. It has been argued that the Indian Constitution does not satisfy certain essential tests of
federalism, namely- the right of the units to make their own Constitution and provision of double
citizenship. Further, in the three-fold distribution of powers, the most important subjects have been
included in the Union list, which is the longest of the three lists containing 97 items. Even regarding the
Concurrent list, Parliament enjoys an overriding authority over the State Legislatures. Article 253
empowers the Union Parliament to make laws implementing any treaty, agreement or convention with
another country or any decision made at any international conference, association, or other body.

Some of the other Constitutional provisions, which are often quoted in favour of the Unitary status of the
Indian Constitution are- emergency powers of the president to declare national emergency or declaring
emergency in a state in the event of failure of Constitutional machinery, the appointment of governors,
unification of judiciary and the dependence of the States on the Centre for finance. The power of the
Union to alter the names and territory of the states, to carry out Constitutional amendments and to affect
co-ordination among the States and settle their mutual disputes is also regarded as an indicator of the
unitary character of the Indian Constitution.

It should be remembered that the aforementioned provisions in the Constitution are aimed at establishing
a working balance between the requirements of national unity and autonomy of the States. Dr Ambedkar,
one of the architects of the Indian Constitution, rightly prophesied: Our Constitution would be both
unitary as well as federal according to the requirements of time and circumstances.

Constitutional Intent

Being aware that not withstanding a common cultural heritage, without political unity, the country would
disintegrate under the pressure of fissiparous forces, the Constituent Assembly addressed itself to the
immensely complex task of devising a Union with a strong Centre. In devising the pattern of the Centre
State relations they were influenced by the Constitutions of Canada and Australia which have a
Parliamentary form of government and America which has a Presidential form of government. The
Government of India Act, 1935 was also relied upon with significant changes. The Constitution cannot be
called "federal" or 
"unitary" in the ideal sense of the terms.

It is stipulated in the Constitution that India will be a Union of States (Art.1). The Constitution, thus
postulated India as a Union of States and consequently, the existence of federal structure of governance
for this Union of States becomes a basic structure of the Union of India. Dr. Ambedkar, the principal
architect of the Constitution observed-........ the use of the word Union is deliberate. The Drafting
Committee wanted to make it clear that though India was to be a federation, the federation was not a
result of an agreement by the States to join in the federation and that the federation not being the result of
an agreement no state has a right to secede from it. Though the country and the people may be divided
into different states for convenience of administration the whole country is one integral whole, its people
a single people living under a single imperium derived from a single source.

The Constitution makes a distribution of powers between the Union and the States, the jurisdiction of
each being demarcated by the Union, State and Concurrent lists. In case of a conflict between the two
legislatures over a matter in the Concurrent list the will of the Parliament prevails. The supremacy of the
Constitution- the hallmark of a federation- is an important feature of the Indian polity. Neither the
Central government nor the State Governments can override or contravene the provisions of the
Constitution. Another pre-requisite of a federation, namely, an independent judiciary - an interpreter and
guardian of the Constitution - is also present in the Indian Federation. The Supreme Court can declare
any law passed by the Union Parliament or a State legislature ultra vires if it contravenes any of the
provisions of the Constitution.

Judicial Interpretation
The debate whether India has a ‘Federal Constitution’ and ‘Federal Government’ has been grappling the
Apex court in India because of the theoretical label given to the Constitution of India, namely, federal,
quasi-federal, unitary. The first significant case where this issue was discussed at length by the apex Court
was State of West Bengal V. Union of India. The main issue involved in this case was the exercise of
sovereign powers by the Indian states. The legislative competence of the Parliament to enact a law for
compulsory acquisition by the Union of land and other properties vested in or owned by the state and the
sovereign authority of states as distinct entities was also examined. The apex court held that the Indian
Constitution did not propound a principle of absolute federalism. Though the authority was decentralized
this was mainly due to the arduous task of governing the large territory. The court outlined the
characteristics, which highlight the fact that the Indian Constitution is not a "traditional federal
Constitution". Firstly, there is no separate Constitution for each State as is required in a federal state. The
Constitution is the supreme document, which governs all the states. Secondly, the Constitution is liable to
be altered by the Union Parliament alone and the units of the country i.e. the States have no power to alter
it. Thirdly, the distribution of powers is to facilitate local governance by the states and national policies to
be decided by the Centre. Lastly, as against a federal Constitution, which contains internal checks and
balances, the Indian Constitution renders supreme power upon the courts to invalidate any action
violative of the Constitution. The Supreme Court further held that both the legislative and executive power
of the States are subject to the respective supreme powers of the Union. Legal sovereignty of the Indian
nation is vested in the people of India. The political sovereignty is distributed between the Union and the
States with greater weight age in favor of the Union. Another reason which militates against the theory of
the supremacy of States is that there is no dual citizenship in India. Thus, the learned judges concluded
that the structure of the Indian Union as provided by the Constitution one is centralized, with the States
occupying a secondary position vis-à-vis the Centre, hence the Centre possessed the requisite powers to
acquire properties belonging to States.

As against this opinion, was the judgment rendered by Justice Subba Rao, the great champion of State
rights. Justice Subba Rao was of the opinion that under the scheme of the Indian Constitution, sovereign
powers are distributed between the Union and the States within their respective spheres. As the legislative
field of the union is much wider than that of the State legislative assemblies, the laws passed by the
Parliament prevail over the State laws in case of any conflict. In a few cases of legislation where inter-State
disputes are involved, sanction of the President is made mandatory for the validity of those laws. Further,
every State has its judiciary with the State High Court at the apex. This, in the opinion of the learned judge
does not affect the federal principle. He gives the parallel of Australia, where appeals against certain
decisions of the High Courts of the Commonwealth of Australia lie with the Privy Council. Thus the Indian
federation cannot be negated on this account. In financial matters the Union has more resources at its
disposal as compared to the states. Thus, the Union being in charge of the purse strings, can always,
persuade the States to abide by its advice. The powers vested in the union in case of national emergencies,
internal disturbance or external aggression, financial crisis, and failure of the Constitutional machinery of
the State are all extraordinary powers in the nature of safety valves to protect the country’s future. The
power granted to the Union to alter the boundaries of the States is also an extraordinary power to meet
future contingencies. In their respective spheres, both executive and legislative, the States are supreme.
The minority view expressed by Justice Subba Rao has consistency with the federal scheme under the
Indian Constitution. The Indian Constitution accepts the federal concept and distributes the sovereign
powers between the coordinate Constitutional entities, namely, the Union and the States.

The next landmark case where the nature of the Indian Constitution was discussed at length was State of
Rajasthan V. Union of India. The learned judges embarked upon a discussion of the abstract principles of
federalism in the face of the express provisions of the Constitution. It was stated that even if it is possible
to see a federal structure behind the establishment of separate executive, legislative and judicial organs in
the States, it is apparent from the provision illustrated in Article 356 that the Union Government is
entitled to enforce its own views regarding the administration and granting of power in the States. The
extent of federalism of the Indian Union is largely watered down by the needs of progress, development
and making the nation integrated, politically and economically co-ordinated, and socially and spiritually
uplifted. The Court then proceeded to list out some of the Constitutional provisions which establish the
supremacy of the Parliament over the State legislatures. In conclusion the apex Court held that it was the
‘prerogative’ of the Union Parliament to issue directives if they were for the benefit of the people of the
State and were aimed at achieving the objectives set out in the Preamble.

The issue of federalism was carried forward in S.R.Bommai V. Union of India. Four opinions were
rendered, expressing varying views. Justice Ahmadi opined that in order to understand the true nature of
the Indian Constitution, it is essential to comprehend the concept of federalism. The essence of the
federation is the existence of the Union and the States and the distribution of powers between them. The
significant absence of expressions like ‘federal’ or ‘federation’ in the Constitution, the powers of the
Parliament under Articles 2 and 3, the extraordinary powers conferred to meet emergency situations,
residuary powers, powers to issue directions to the States, concept of single citizenship and the system of
integrated judiciary create doubts about the federal nature of the Indian Constitution. Thus, it would be
more appropriate to describe the Constitution of India as quasi- federal or unitary rather than a federal
Constitution in the true nature of the term. As opposed to this, Justice Sawant and Justice Kuldip Singh
regarded democracy and federalism as essential features of the Indian Constitution. The overriding
powers of the Centre in the event of emergency do not destroy the federal character of the Indian
Constitution. The learned judges elaborated upon the scope and justified use of the power conferred on
the president by Article 356 which will not restrict the scope of the independent powers of the respective
States for "......every State is constituent political unit and has to have an exclusive Executive and
Legislature elected and constituted by the same process as the Union Government."

In the opinion of Justice Ramaswamy, the units of the federation had no roots in the past and hence the
Constitution does not provide mechanisms to uphold the territorial integrity of the States above the
powers of the Parliament. The end sought to be achieved by the Constitution makers was to place the
whole country under the control of a unified Central Government, while the States were allowed to
exercise their sovereign powers within their legislative, executive and administrative powers. The essence
of federalism lies in the distribution of powers between the Centre and the State. Justice Ramawamy
declared the Indian structure as organic federalism, designed to suit the parliamentary form of
Government and the diverse conditions prevailing in India. Justice Jeevan Reddy and Justice Agarwal
opined that the expression federal or federal form of government has no fixed meaning. The Constitution
is also distinct in character, a federation with a bias in favour of the Centre. But this factor does not reduce
the States to mere appendages of the Centre. Within the sphere allotted to them the states are supreme.
Conclusion
We can henceforth see that the Indian judiciary had interpreted the Constitution to declare India a
unitary nation. This view of the apex court has lately undergone a change. The Court has recognized the
fact that the framers of the Indian Constitution intended to provide a federal structure with a strong
Centre, which would prevent the nation from disintegration. 
In a subsequent case Chief Justice P.B.Gajendragadkar, emphasized upon the federal nature of the
Constitution and the Judiciary as the sole interpreter of the Constitution which could not be changed by
the process of ordinary legislation.In the basic structure thesis case Keshavananda Bharti V. State of
Kerala some of the judges in the full Constitutional Bench expressed federalism as one of the basic
features of the Indian Constitution. In another case Justice Bhagwati, described Indian Constitution as
a federal or quasi- federal Constitution. In Sat Pal V. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court again held that
Ours is a Constitution where there is a combination of federal structure with unitary features.......
In Pradeep Jain V. Union of India, the Apex Court expressed a non-traditionalistic yet pragmatic opinion
while explaining the federal concept in the context of the unified legal system in India-  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. In Ganga Ram Moolchandani v.
State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court reiterated: 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 Committee expressed a similar opinion.

The finer federal facet has often been misinterpreted by the central operators. So the battle for federal
affirmation and restoration of democratic decentralization has gained momentum over the decade.
Important Commissions like Rajamannar and Sarkaria Commission have stressed on the federal soul of
the Constitution. In the opinion of Amal Ray, the Indian Constitution is a product of two conflicting
cultures  one representing the national leader’s normative concern for India’s unique personality and the
other over-emphasizing the concern for national unity, security, etc. And as a result, the founding fathers
opted for a semi-hegemonic federal structure where the balance is in favour of the Centre. This concept is
aptly described in the insight offered by Dr. Ambedkar: the Indian Constitution would work as a federal
system in 'normal times' but in times of 'emergency' it could be worked as though it were a unitary system.
The critics of the Indian Federal system must not ignore the fact that not only the Federal Government in
India has been made deliberately strong, there is also a centralizing tendency in the other federal states of
the world such as Switzerland, Australia, Canada and the United States.

In an attempt to assert their independence the States have, at various points of time tried to flout the
Centre’s orders. An example was the disobedience of Karnataka to confirm to the Centre’s directives
regarding release of water to Tamil Nadu. Such actions have generated wide spread opposition from
interested parties. A similar situation arose when Punjab Termination of Agreements Bill, 2004, was
flouted by the State of Punjab recently. The unilateral termination of a tripartite agreement raised a
controversy in which the authority of the State to commit such an act is being questioned. Annulling the
very basis on which the Supreme Court had pressured the State to implement the river water-sharing
agreement of 1981, the Bill has created an unprecedented Constitutional crisis.
 In a response to the increasing number of water disputes the United Progressive Alliance Government has
proposed to set up two Commissions to look into the Centre- State relations, including river water-
sharing, and to examine administrative reforms.

In the light of the past experiences of misuse of power certain amendments should be effected which will
strengthen the federal nature of our Constitution. Firstly, there should be devolution of more financial
resources and powers on the States so that they do not have to depend on the Centre for financial
assistance. Secondly number of statutory grants to which the States are entitled should increase. Thirdly,
the States should also be given greater autonomy to undertake developmental programmes. Lastly, there
should be some inbuilt safeguards against the blatant misuse of Article 356 by successive central
Governments.
It is time to undertake a study of Indian Federalism with a view to valuate the trends, frictions and
difficulties which have developed in the area of inter-governmental relations and to seek to evolve ways
and means to meet the challenging task of making the Indian federation a more robust, strong and
workable system so that the country may meet the tasks of self-improvement and development.

The responsibility lies on not only the jurists and policy framers, but also the citizens of the country to
work in a harmonious manner for the development of the country. 

Links to this post  

Labels: Indian Constitution, paper 2

You might also like:

 Nature of Indian Constitution (Paper 2, Section 3, Unit 1)
 Nature of Indian Constitution (Paper 2, Section 3, Unit 1) - 3
 Constitution of India - whether Federal or Unitary
 Indian Constitution - borrowed elements
 Civil Services Preliminary Exam - 2009 Paper
LinkWithin

Nature of Indian Constitution (Paper 2, Section 3, Unit 1)

0 comments Posted by Admin - APPSC Group 1 at 5:26 PM

Nature of the Indian Constitution

• Though the members of the Drafting Committee of the Constituent Assembly called the Indian
Constitution federal although nowhere mentioned in the Constitution itself), some jurists dispute
this title.
• The Western scholars generally take the US Constitution as a role model of federal Constitution
and exclude those Constitutions, which do not conform to it from the nomenclature of
'federation'.
• But now, it is increasingly realised that any assumption of such a typology is fallacious, and it
is generally agreed that the question whether a state is unitary or federal is one of degrees, and
whether it is a federation or not depends upon the number of federal features it possesses.
What is a Federation?

• It is a group of regions or States united with a Central Government or a Federal Government.

• A federation has a well-established dual polity or dual form of Government i.e. the field of
Government is divided between the Federal and the State Governments which are not
subordinate to one another, but co-ordinate and are independent within their allotted spheres.
• Therefore, the existence of co-ordinate authorities independent of each other is the gist of
thejfederal principle.

Indian situation

• A perusal of the provisions of the Indian Constitution reveals that the political system
introduced by it, possesses all the aforesaid essentials of a federal polity.
• The Indian Constitution establishes a dual polity with the Union at the Centre and the
Statesjitjhe periphery, each enjoying powers clearly demarcated by the Constitution.
• The Constitution is written and supreme, with enough power to declare enactments in excess of
the powers of the Union or State Legislatures as ultra vires (this has been firmly established after
Keshavananda case in 1913)
Moreover, no amendment making any change in the status or powers of the Centre and the States
is possible without the participation of the States (Art. 368).
• Finally, the Supreme Court is the apex authority to interpret the Constitution of India as well as
decide on disputes arising out of Centre-State relations.
• Even though all the five essential characteristics are present in the Indian Constitution, in
certain circumstances, the Constitution empowers the Centre to interfere in the matters of the
States, which places the States in a subordinate position.
This violates the federal principle. 
Provisions in the Indian Constitution which are not strictly federal in character
• The question of the extent of federality is a different matter and in this regard the Constitution
of India has certain distinctive features having a bias towards the Centre.
• The political system of a country is, by and large, the outcome of the circumstances, which
certainly differ from one country to another.
• The following are the provisions in the Indian Constitution which are not strictly federal in
character:

1. In the USA and Australia, the states have their own Constitutions which are equally powerful
as the federal Constitution, but in India, there are no separate Constitutions for the member
States.
2. India follows the principle of uniform and single citizenship, but in the USA and Australia,
double citizenship is followed.
3. In the USA, it is not possible for the Federal Government to unilaterally change the territorial
extent of a State but in India, the Parliament can do so even without the consent to the State
concerned (Art 3). Thus, the States in India do not enjoy the right to territorial integrity.
4. If the President declares national emergency
for the whole or part of India under Art. 352, the Parliament can make laws on subjects, which
are otherwise, exclusively under the State List. The Parliament can give directions to the States
 on the manner in which to exercise their executive authority in matters within their charge. The
financial provisions can also be suspended. 
5. Under Art. 155, the Governor of a State is appointed by the President and the former is not
responsible to the State Legislature. Thus indirectly, the Centre enjoys control over the State
through the appointment of the Governor. 
6. If financial emergency is declared by the President under Art. 360. on the ground that the
financial stability or credibility of India or any of its units is threatened, all the Money Bills
passed by the State Legislatures during the period of financial emergency are also subject to the
control of the Centre. 
7. Under Art. 256, the Centre can give administrative directions to the States, which are binding
on the latter. Along with the directions, the Constitution also provides measures to be adopted by
the Centre to ensure such compliance.
8. Under Art. 312. All India Services officials— IAS, IPS and IFS (forest) — are appointed by
the Centre, but are paid and controlled by the State. However, in case of any irregularities by the
officer, States cannot initiate any disciplinary action except suspending him/her. 9. Judges of the
High Courts are appointed by the President in consultation with the Governors under Art. 217
and the States do not play any role in this. Thus, apart from certain provisions which are biased
towards the Union, the Constitution of India, in normal times, is framed to work as a federal
system. 

But in times of war and other emergencies, it is designed to work as though it were unitary. The federal
Constitutions of the USA and Australia, which are placed in a tight mould of federalism, cannot change
their form. They can never be unitary as per the provisions of the Constitution. But, the Indian
Constitution is a flexible form of federation—a federation of its own kind. That is why Indian federation is
called federation sui generis. Prof K C Wheare described the Constitution of India as 'Quasi Federal' and
remarked that Indian Union is 'a unitary State with subsidiary Federal features rather than a Federal State
with subsidiary unitary features'. Granville Austin described Indian Federalism as 'Co-operative
federalism'. Dr B R Ambedkar said that Indian Political system is both "Unitary as well as federal
according to the requirements of time and circumstances".

Links to this post  

Labels: appsc group 1, Indian Constitution, Indian Politics, paper 2

You might also like:

 Nature of Indian Constitution (Paper 2, Section 3, Unit 1) - 2
 Nature of Indian Constitution (Paper 2, Section 3, Unit 1) - 3
 Indian Constitution - borrowed elements
 Constitution of India - whether Federal or Unitary
 Civil Services Preliminary Exam - 2009 Paper
LinkWithin

No change in the Prelims Exam date

0 comments Posted by Admin - APPSC Group 1 at 9:46 PM
The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission has announced today that there will be no change in the
Group 1 Preliminary Exam date. They sounded determined to conduct the examination with police
protection if necessary.
 Most of the candidates must have gone off course for the past 4-5 days. But now that the date is not
changed, it is time for all of you to get into the track again. Remember these are the crucial moments
which reflect in the result of the examination. Don't worry even if you have not read anything in the past
two days. It doesn't matter much. Keep your cool now, calm your nerves and get back to business.

The aspirants of Telangana region should be very careful during the day of the exam. Reach the
examination center one hour before time.... just in case there are any mishaps. Keep in mind that any
small mishap will ruin your life. So avoid the main roads and use the small streets while going to the
Examination Center and keep an extra pencil, pen and an extra copy of Hall Ticket so that even if there is
any riot you will have a back up.

All the best to all our aspirants. Wish you success.

Links to this post  

Labels: appsc group 1

You might also like:

 AP mourns YSRs demise
 Commonwealth Games 2010
 International Boundaries of India
 Introduction to Ancient Indian History
 Vedic Civilization - Audio Material for Group 1
LinkWithin

Ten Most Populous Countries

0 comments Posted by Admin - APPSC Group 1 at 2:46 PM

1. China
2. India
3. USA
4. Indonesia
5. Brazil
6. Pakistan
7. Bangladesh
8. Nigeria
9. Russia
10. Japan

Links to this post  

Labels: appsc group 1, appsc group 1 current affairs

You might also like:

 Current Affairs - October 1-15, 2008 National Events
 Current Affairs - October 1-15, 2008 Economy
 Ten Largest Countries
 Current Affairs - October 1-15, 2008 Awards
 Current Affairs - October 1-15, 2008 S&T
LinkWithin
 Commonwealth Games 2010
0 comments Posted by Admin - APPSC Group 1 at 8:04 AM

 CWG occur every 4 years

 3rd most popular multisport event (next to Olympics & Asian Games).
 1st CWG - 1930 - Hamilton, Ontario, Canda.
 18th CWG - 2006 - Melbourne, Australia.
 19th CWG - 2010 - New Delhi, India
 20th CWG - 2014 - Glasgow, Scotland.
 Commonwealth Nations - 54
 CWG Teams - 71
 Head of Commonwealth - Queen Elizabeth II
 Secretary General of Commonwealth - Kamalesh Sharma

19th Commonwealth Games, 2010:

 Motto - "Humanity, Equality, Destiny"

 Mascot - Shera
 17 Sports & 4 Parasports will be held.
 Additional Games in 2010 are Archery & Tennis.
 CWG Organising Committee Chairman - Suresh Kalmadi.
 Schedule - October 3rd - 14th, 2010.

Links to this post  

Labels: appsc group 1, current afairs

You might also like:

 National Committees of importance to Group 1 Prelims
 Armed Forces Tribunal - Aug, 2009
 Current Affairs - October 1-15, 2008 International Events
 AP mourns YSRs demise
 Economic Conditions in Gupta Period
LinkWithin

Ten Largest Countries

0 comments Posted by Admin - APPSC Group 1 at 7:00 PM

1. Russia
2. Canada
3. China
4. USA
5. Brazil
6. Australia
7. India
8. Argentina
9. Kazakhsthan
10. Sudan

Links to this post  

Labels: appsc group 1, appsc group 1 current affairs

You might also like:

 Ten Most Populous Countries
 Current Affairs - October 1-15, 2008 Economy
 National Committees of importance to Group 1 Prelims
 Current Affairs - October 1-15, 2008 National Events
 Current Affairs - October 1-15, 2008 Awards
LinkWithin

National Committees of importance to Group 1 Prelims

0 comments Posted by Admin - APPSC Group 1 at 2:30 PM

Yashpal Panel Higher Education

Raghavan Committee Ragging
Sachar Committe Social, Economical and Educational status of Muslims
Ranganath Mishra Commission 15% Reservation to Muslims
Liberhan Commission Babri Masjid Demolition
Kakodkar Committee IIT Reforms
Soli Sorabjee Committee Police Reforms
B.K.Chaturvedi Committee Domestic Oil Pricing Policy
Punchi Commission Center-State ties
Sarkaria Commission Center-State relations & Balance of power
Community Development Program (recommended
Balwantrai Mehta Committee
Panchayati Raj)
Ashok Mehta Committee 2-tier Panchayat Raj System
Jivanlal Kapur Commission Gandhi Murder Case
Shah Nawaz Committee (1956) Death of Subhash Chandra Bose
Khosla Commission (1970) Death of Subhash Chandra Bose
Mukherjee Commission (1999) Death of Subhash Chandra Bose
Kaka Kalelkar Commission (1955) 1st commission on Backward Classes
Mandal Commission (1979) OBC Quota & other Reservations
Nanavati Commission 1984 Anti Sikh riots
U.C.Banerjee Panel 2002 Godhra riots
Nanavati Mehta Committee 2002 Godhra riots
J.C.Shah Commission Indian Emergency 1975-77
Commissions Chairman
Central Vigilance Commission Pratyusha Sinha
Finance Commission Vijay Kelkar
Planning Commission PM (Deputy Chairman - Montek Singh Ahluwalia)
National Commission for Women Girija Vyas
National Commission for Minorities Md.Shafi Qureshi
National Human Rights Commission K.G.Balakrishnan
National Knowledge Commission Sam Pitroda
1st Administrative Reforms
Morarji Desai
Commission
2nd Administrative Reforms
V.Ramachandran
Commission

A committee is a group of people who meet and deliberate according to fixed rules in order to make a
decision or produce a document as a group. A commission is a group of people who are entrusted (that is
the etymology) by a government to carry out a task. Sometimes the task is a specific one (like ascertaining
a particular fact or resolving a particular problem) and sometimes the task is more long-term. A
commission is usually distinct from other kinds of agency in two ways: it has no single, permanent
administrator, and it has no independent or constitutional authority of its own—it operates under the
authority of another part of the government. Of course, a commission can be a committee, but very few
committees are commissions, and some commissions are not committees.

The defining difference is that a committee is part of a larger organization. A commission is an

independent group. A commission is a group of people appointed either by the law, a corporation or any
other higher authority to enforce established procedures or discuss specific issues. A committe, on the
other hand, can be formed by anyone to address any issue of their choice. 

Parliamentary Committees
The functions of Parliament are not only varied in nature, but considerable in volume. The time at its
disposal is limited. It cannot make very detailed scrutiny of all legislative and other matters that come up
before it. A good deal of Parliamentary business is, therefore, transacted in the committees.

Both Houses of Parliament have a similar committee structure, with a few exceptions. Their appointment,
terms of office, functions and procedure of conducting business are also more or less similar and are
regulated as per rules made by the two Houses under Article 118(1) of the Constitution.

Broadly, Parliamentary Committees are of two kinds - Standing Committees and ad hoc Committees. The
former are elected or appointed every year or periodically and their work goes on, more or less, on a
continuous basis. The latter are appointed on an ad hoc basis as need arises and they cease to exist as
soon as they complete the task assigned to them.

Standing Committees: Among the Standing Committees, the three Financial Committees - Committees
on Estimates, Public Accounts and Public Undertakings - constitute a distinct group as they keep an
unremitting vigil over Government expenditure and performance. While members of the Rajya Sabha are
associated with Committees on Public Accounts and Public Undertakings, the members of the Committee
on Estimates are drawn entirely from the Lok Sabha.

The Estimates Committee reports on 'what economies, improvements in organisation, efficiency or

administrative reform consistent with policy underlying the estimates' may be effected. It also examines
whether the money is well laid out within limits of the policy implied in the estimates and suggests the
form in which estimates shall be presented to Parliament. The Public Accounts Committee scrutinises
appropriation and finance accounts of Government and reports of the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
It ensures that public money is spent in accordance with Parliament's decision and calls attention to cases
of waste, extravagance, loss or nugatory expenditure. The Committee on Public Undertakings examines
reports of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, if any. It also examines whether public undertakings are
being run efficiently and managed in accordance with sound business principles and prudent commercial
practices.

Besides these three Financial Committees, the Rules Committee of the Lok Sabha recommended setting-
up of 17 Department Related Standing Committees (DRSCs). Accordingly, 17 Department Related
Standing Committees were set up on 8 April 1993. In July 2004, rules were amended to provide for the
constitution of seven more such committees, thus raising the number of DRSCs from 17 to 24. The
functions of these Committees are:

1. to consider the Demands for Grants of various Ministries/Departments of Government of India

and make reports to the Houses;
2. to examine such Bills as are referred to the Committee by the Chairman, Rajya Sabha or the
Speaker, Lok Sabha, as the case may be, and make reports thereon;
3. to consider Annual Reports of ministries/departments and make reports thereon; and
4. to consider policy documents presented to the Houses, if referred to the Committee by the
Chairman, Rajya Sabha or the Speaker, Lok Sabha, as the case may be, and make reports thereon.

Other Standing Committees in each House, divided in terms of their functions, are

1. Committees to Inquire: 
 1.
Committee on Petitions examines petitions on bills and on matters of general public
interest and also entertains representations on matters concerning subjects in the Union
List; and
2. Committee of Privileges examines any question of privilege referred to it by the House or
Speaker/Chairman;
2. Committees to Scrutinise: 

1.
Committee on Government Assurances keeps track of all the assurances, promises,
undertakings, etc., given by Ministers in the House and pursues them till they are
implemented;
2. Committee on Subordinate Legislation scrutinises and reports to the House whether the
power to make regulations, rules, sub-rules, bye-laws, etc., conferred by the Constitution
or Statutes is being properly exercised by the delegated authorities; and
3. Committee on Papers Laid on the Table examines all papers laid on the table of the House
by Ministers, other than statutory notifications and orders which come within the
purview of the Committee on Subordinate Legislation, to see whether there has been
compliance with the provisions of the Constitution, Act, rule or regulation under which
the paper has been laid;
3. Committees relating to the day-today business of the House: 

1.Business Advisory Committee recommends allocation of time for items of Government

and other business to be brought before the Houses;
2. Committee on Private Members’ Bills and Resolutions of the Lok Sabha classifies and
allocates time to Bills introduced by private members, recommends allocation of time for
discussion on private members’ resolutions and examines Constitution amendment bills
before their introduction by private members in the Lok Sabha. The Rajya Sabha does not
have such a committee. It is the Business Advisory Committee of that House which
recommends allocation of time for discussion on stage or stages of private members’ bills
and resolutions;
3. Rules Committee considers matters of procedure and conduct of business in the House
and recommends amendments or additions to the Rules; and
4. Committee on Absence of Members from the Sittings of the House of the Lok Sabha
considers all applications from members for leave or absence from sittings of the House.
There is no such Committee in the Rajya Sabha. Applications from members for leave or
absence are considered by the House itself;
4. Committee on the Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, on which members from
both Houses serve, considers all matters relating to the welfare of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes which come within the purview of the Union Government and keeps a watch
whether constitutional safeguards in respect of these classes are properly implemented;
5. Committees concerned with the provision of facilities to members: 

1. General Purposes Committee considers and advises Speaker/Chairman on matters

concerning affairs of the House, which do not appropriately fall within the purview of any
other Parliamentary Committee; and
2. House Committee deals with residential accommodation and other amenities for
members;
6. Joint Committee on Salaries and Allowances of Members of Parliament, constituted under the
Salary, Allowances and Pension of Members of Parliament Act, 1954, apart from framing rules for
regulating payment of salary, allowances and pension to Members of Parliament, also frames
rules in respect of amenities like medical, housing, telephone, postal, constituency and secretarial
facility;
7. Joint Committee on Offices of Profit examines the composition and character of committees and
other bodies appointed by the Central and State governments and Union Territories
 Administrations and recommends what offices ought to or ought not to disqualify a person from
being chosen as a member of either House of Parliament;
8. The Library Committee consisting of members from both Houses, considers matters concerning
the Library of Parliament;
9. On 29 April 1997, a Committee on Empowerment of Women with members from both the Houses
was constituted with a view to securing, among other things, status, dignity and equality for
women in all fields;
10. On 4 March 1997, the Ethics Committee of the Rajya Sabha was constituted. The Ethics
Committee of the Lok Sabha was constituted on 16 May 2000.

Ad hoc Committees: Such Committees may be broadly classified under two heads:

1. committees which are constituted from time to time, either by the two Houses on a motion
adopted in that behalf or by Speaker/Chairman to inquire into and report on specific subjects,
(e.g., Committees on the Conduct of certain Members during President's Address, Committees on
Draft Five-Year Plans, Railway Convention Committee, Committee on Members of Parliament
Local Area Development Scheme, Joint Committee on Bofors Contracts, Joint Committee on
Fertilizer Pricing, Joint Committee to enquire into irregularities in securities and banking
transactions, Joint Committee on Stock Market Scam, Joint Committees on Security in
Parliament Complex, Committee on Provision of Computers for Members of Parliament, Offices
of Political Parties and Officers of the Lok Sabha Secretariat; Committee on Food Management in
Parliament House Complex; Committee on Installation of Portraits/Statues of National Leaders
and Parliamentarians in Parliament House Complex, etc.), and
2. Select or Joint Committees on Bills which are appointed to consider and report on a particular
Bill. These Committees are distinguishable from the other ad hoc committees inasmuch as they
are concerned with Bills and the procedure to be followed by them as laid down in the Rules of
Procedure and Directions by the Speaker/Chairman.

Further Reading :
A commission has powers delegated from above to it and is given a task to perform. Its terms of
reference are relatively specific, even though these may be very broad or very narrow. Representativeness
is not a relevant criterion for a commission.

A committee is a more horizontal grouping of appointees for co-decision making. The emphasis is more
“how are we going to do this?”. Committees operate according to formalised rules of procedure. 

A panel has no powers, and will simply advise a decision-making body. It is usually composed of experts
who may be external to the organisation of the decision-making body. Members should be chosen on the
basis of their expertise. Representativeness is not a relevant criterion.

A working group is conceptually similar to a committee, yet more informal, temporary and ad hoc. Its
members are the people actually working on the thing that is the subject of its decision-making. The
decision-making is more detailed.

A board is supreme, i.e. it is not subordinate, i.e. it does not receive instructions, but instructs the
executive to do things. (e.g. board of directors in a company, board of trustees, board of governors)

A council is a body of members who are representative of a larger group (typically an electorate). Its
decision-making and powers are not relevant criteria. The criterion is solely that it is representative.

A roundtable exists solely to exchange information through question, answer and discussion among its
members. Attendees may be heads of government, journalists, company heads, high-ranking officials.
While heads of government may reach agreement around a roundtable, this decision-making is not the
relevant criterion for calling the meeting a roundtable. Roundtables are often not recurrent.

A group (e.g. a G7 meeting, group of wise men = monetary policy experts) is used when there is the need
to emphasise equality between members. Its members are independent and not subordinate to any
decision the group. The group is not a body having any authority. Agreements may be made, but the
emphasis is more on discussion.

Links to this post