SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II ASSIGNMENT

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF FEDERALISM IN INDIA AND
U.S. : A CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE

Submitted to Submitted by

Atmaram Shelke Karthik Rajagopal

I YEAR LLB

PRN :16010122078
INTRODUCTION

Being the largest democratic countries in the world, both United States and India are
based on federalism in their political structure. US became a Federal Republic State by
promulgating its constitution in the year 1789; whereas India became a Socialist, Sovereign,
Secular, Democratic republic by formally launching its constitution only in the year 1950.
Thereby both countries had attained dominion status in which a number of smaller states had
got affiliated forming a union with a strong central government that came to be called as
Federal Government in the US and Central Government in India. Thus both states became
Federal Republics.

Federalism is a form of government which has been progressively becoming more powerful
throughout the globe. There was a time during Worldwar II, when Harold Lasci, the eminent
Bristish political scientist wrote that federalism has come to an end. That was the period of
the great economic depression and the beginning of the Worldwar II, and both of these events
have contributed to the theory of separation of powers and it has been a revival to the federal
principle to the federal form of government.

Today, federal form of government and the institution of judicial review are the most widely
expanding principles of government. It has been increasingly becoming popular in the new
constitutions in the world.

Nepal and Myanmar has been contemplating on the idea of adopting the federal form of
government. This form of government is very prevalent in Srilanka and Pakistan.

Federal form of government is based on a constitutional contract. A constitution division of

powers between the center and the states federal government which cannot be arbitrarily
altered by will of any government. It is a constitutional demarcation which can be unilaterally
annealed unless there is a constitutional amendment. The parliament can make any law at any
moment. But, a constitutional amendment requires a special majority in both the houses of
the parliament separately and 2/3rds majority in two houses of the parliament separately and
ratification of atleast 50 percent of state legislature. That is the significance of federal
principle.
Broadly speaking, a constitution serves the following three purposes :

1. The distribution and delimitation of public powers.

2. The maintenance of public rights.
3. The declaration of public obligations.

The distribution of public powers requires the definition of :

a) The respective spheres of authority of the central and local governments,

b) The mode of exercising the authority so divided, and
c) The regulation of mutual relations between public institutions charged with authority
and between the central and local governments.

The maintenance of public rights, in its relation to all citizens under the constitution,
involves the guarantee to them of a measure of individual liberty by legal sanction – eg.,
by means of writ of Habeas Corpus, the freedom of religious practices, and of the
expression of personal views.

FEDERALISM IN INDIA

Genesis of idea of federalism in India was first traced in Simon Commission, “Indian
Statutory Commission” appointed in 1927. The Commission was meant for revision of the
Constitution for India. In its report in 1930, the Commission recommended the evolution of
India into a ‘federation of self-governing units.’

The representatives of Princely States declared during the First Round Table Conference
(1930-32) that they would join an “All India Federation with a self-governing British India1”.
The White Paper embodying the report of Round Table Conference, in March 1933 was
submitted to Joint Select Committee of Parliament, which preferred creation of “d)e)f)By
Government of India Act, 1935, the background was ready for making India to become a
federation with 11 Governor’s provinces and 650 Native states, who supposed to have fifty
per cent seats in Council of States. However, execution of the instrument of accession was
the prerequisite to form the Federation, which could not become a reality.

1
Modern Indian history- B L GROVER
The Cabinet Mission Plan in 1946 contemplated the division of the country into three Zones,
Zone A, Zone B and Zone C, based on the concentration of Hindus and Muslims. Zones B and
C included Muslim dominated areas. The Centre was supposed to be the uniting point of
these three zones, with its power confined only to Defence, Foreign Affairs and
Communication. Constituent Assembly was to be divided into three sections according to the
Zonal scheme for evolving provincial and group Constitutions. The proposal of grouping of
Provinces became point of dispute and disagreement, while in general; the Plan was
acceptable to major political parties. The division of three Zones eventually resulted in
Partition as a precondition for Independence. While presenting the Partition scheme, Lord
Mountbatten insisted the major parties to agree for partition to have the federation with a
strong centre, instead of weak centre as contemplated in Cabinet Mission Plan.

Generally speaking, the CONFEDERATION is a system where the units dominate the Union,
in Unitary State, the Union dominates the Units, and if Union and Units is co-equal it is
Federation. In a Confederation, there will be an alliance between independent states where
units can secede. In Unitary State the legislatures of Units derive power from Central
Legislature. Vital feature of federation is division of legislative powers, each unit being
sovereign in its own place.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar used the term Union to make it clear that states had no right to secede
from the Union to set themselves into separate States. He said that this Union was Federation
and called it a flexible federation to say that it was not as rigid as the American Constitution
was. However the expression Federation was not used deliberately.

In Keshavananda Bharti vs State of Kerela2, the Supreme Court held that the federal
character of the Constitution was its basic feature. In State of Rajasthan vs. Union of India
(AIR 1977 SC 1361), the Supreme Court stated that, The Constitution is amphibian in sense
that it can move either on the federal or the unitary plane. When action is taken under Article
356, the movement is on the unitary plane.

In West Bengal vs. Union of India3 the Supreme Court observed, “The Indian Union is not a
true federation.”

2
AIR 1973 SC 1461
3
AIR 1963 SC 1241
FIVE ESSENTIALS OF FEDERAL CHARACTER

 The Constitution must be written

 It must be rigid

 It must be supreme law of the land

 There must be division or distribution of powers between the Union or Federal

Government and the various States or Provinces.

 There must be an independent and impartial judiciary to interpret the Constitution and
the Laws.

HISTORY OF FEDERALISM IN INDIA

India emerged as a federation getting relieved from the clutches of British Raj4. Several
princely states, which were divided and ruled, came together to form the Indian Union. The
Centre and Provinces of Pre-Independence days became Union and States with clear division
of powers enlisted in three lists- Union, States and Concurrent Lists. The Indian Federation
was joined by the former Princely States, which later became the units of the federation.
Several such states acceded to India and became full-fledged members of the Indian union.
When Constitution of India came into force, the component units were grouped into four
categories of States. By a gradual process the reorganization of States took place, which
continued up to the close of 1969.

Ambedkar said that that the Indian Federation was a “Union” because it was indissoluble, and
no state has the right to secede from it. The federation is a Union because it is indestructible

Strong Centre to secure the nation

The founding fathers of the Constitution felt a need for a strong Centre because of prevailing
social, economic and political conditions. Ambedkar said in the Constituent Assembly: “The
Indian Constitution is a federal Constitution in as much as it established what may be called a
dual polity which will consist of the Union at the Centre and the States at the periphery each

4
India after Gandhi- Ramchandra Guha
endowed with sovereign powers to be exercised in the field assigned to them respectively by
the Constitution.”

Flexibility in working of Federation

Article 249 is a well-drafted provision intending to secure greater flexibility in working the
federation. The States have exclusive power to legislate on matters contained in the States
List. Article 249 provides for a situation where the national interest requires that Parliament
can legislate on a subject in the State List only if Council of States resolves by 2/3 rd majority
that it is necessary in the national interest.

Centre-State Administrative Relations

The term “Executive power” has no precise definition either in the Constitution or any statute
or rule conferring executive power. Nevertheless, there is some demarcation of executive
power between the Centre and the States. Ordinarily, executive power connotes, “the residue
of governmental functions that remain after legislative and judicial powers are taken away,”
(per Supreme Court in Ramjawaya Kapoor vs. State of Rajasthan5. The exercise of executive
function comprises the determination of policy as well as carrying into execution, the
maintenance of order, the promotion of social and economic welfare, in fact, the carrying on
or supervision of the general administration of the state.

FEDERALISM IN U.S.

The United States is a federal system6. The powers of the national government are listed in
article I, and were said by James Madison to be ‘few and defined’7. Few, perhaps: article I,
section 8 has 18 clauses, though some have sub divisions. And defined, to some extent: the
clause giving congress the power ‘to establish post offices and post roads’8 is not subject to
much interpretation. Other provisions are not as obviously well defined; the meaning of the
clause giving congress the power ‘to regulate commerce among the several states’ has been
contested almost continuously since 1789.

5
1955 2 SCR 225
6
Mark Tushnet- constitution of USA
7
The federalist
8
Chief justice John Marshall dia argue that the clause did not clearly give congress the power to punish postal
thefts
The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people. Upholding the federal minimum wage law, Justice Harlan
Fiske stone observed that textually this provision ‘states but a truism that all is restrained
which has been surrendered’9. Madison provides a useful statement: ‘the powers reserved to
the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs,
concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement,
and prosperity and the state’10.

State governments and the US constitution

The US constitution says nothing about the powers state governments have. Some provisions
expressly limit state power, for e.g. by barring state from issuing bill of credit 11. In addition
the national government has the power to displace state laws by enacting legislation that falls
within the powers granted to the national government. Justice Louis Brabdeis famously
asserted that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and
try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country12.

State governments mirror the national government in structure: an elected chief executive,
two houses in the legislature and a judiciary. Aside from the fundamental proposition that
state governments have plenary power- that is, can legislate on any subject whatever-
whereas the national government has only enumerated powers, state government differ from
the national government structurally in many ways.

Each state develops its own budget. The us constitution does not require that the national
government operate in fiscal balance and in recent years it has rarely done so.

Federalism revolution of the 1990s

Several Supreme Court decisions in the 1990s led observers to declare that a federalism
revolution had begun. And indeed the court found a few statues unconstitutional because they
violated principles of federalism for the first time since 1936. Yet, to this point the revolution

9
United States vs Darby 312US 100,124 (1941)
10
SUPRA 11
11
Mark Tushnet- constitution of USA
12
New state ice co. Vs Liebman 285 US,311 (1932)
looks more like a group of framers with pitchforks than a serious effort to overturn the
expansion of national power that followed the new deal.

Federalism and the spending power

The main lines of centralization of power in the national government were laid down through
congressional use of the power to regulate interstate commerce. Congress has others powers,
of course, and as the twentieth century proceed, one in particular become increasingly
important. Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes and provide for the common
defence and general welfare of the United States.

The growth of the national government and especially the adoption of the 16th amendment
(1913) authorizing congress to collect an income tax opened up the possibility of a more
vigorous use of the taxing and spending powers. Their most important implications for the
divisions of effective governing power between the states and the national government came
from conditional spending programs. In light of the national governments fiscal resources the
conditional spending power has become almost as important a tool for centralizing governing
authority as the commerce clause. And the court has shown no interest in developing serious
limitations on the conditional spending power.

SUPREME COURT PRESPECTIVE ON FEDERALISM

“The union of the states never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among
the colonies and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, similar interest and
geographical relations”- Chief Justice Salmon p. Chase writing for the court in Texas v
White13

“In interpreting the constitution, it must never be forgotten that the nation is made up of states
to which are entrusted the power of local government. And to them and to the people in the
powers not expressly delegated to the national government are reserved”-Justice William r.
Day writing for the court in Hammer v Dagenhart14

“apart from the limitation on Federal authority inherent in the delegated nature of congress
article I powers the principal means chosen by the framers to ensure the role of the states in

13
74 US 700
14
247US 251
the feudal system lies in the structure of the federal government itself”.- Justice Harry
Blackmun, writing for the court in Garcia vs. San Antonio metro transit authority15

In the case of Chisholm vs. Georgia16

The U.S. Supreme Court rendered its first major constitutional decision in 1793. It deals with
state soveignity. An essential aspect of sovereignty in the Anglo- American tradition has been
sovereign immunity. As previously noted article III of the constitution granted to federal
courts jurisdiction over controversies between a state and citizens of another state.

COMPARING THE MODEL OF FEDERALISM IN INDIA AND U.S.

The Traditional approach towards identifying the federal character of the Constitution17

1. Dual polity

2. Distribution of powers

3. Supremacy of the Constitution

4. A Written Constitution

5. Rigidity

But Ivo D. Duchacek approached the federalism in a different manner by raising certain
questions based on classical model constitution of America. He provided 10 yardsticks for
testing the federal character of the Constitution

1. Has the central authority exclusive control over diplomacy and defense as befits nation-
states in relations with other nation –states?

 In India Article 246 read with schedule VII – various entries- 1,2,4,10,11,13,14,15
directly provides for the exclusive control of the central authority

 Besides these direct provisions there are other Entries like 5,6,7,9,12,16,17,18,19,37
and 41 of the List I support the union in this matters

15
469 US 528
16
2 US 419
17
Comparative constitutional law- Tom Ginsburg and Rosalind Dixon
  Articles 53(2),352,353 and 355 further strengthen this power of central authority

2. Is the Federal Union Constitutionally immune against dissolution by secession?

 Under US Constitutions there is no chance to have secession

 Texas v White18- the US Supreme Court held that US is an indestructible Union of

indestructible States

 In India the Constitution in Article 1 says India that is Bharat shall be a Union of
States

 Territories of the State are Specified in Schedule I

 Article2 parliament is having the power to admit and establish new states, Parliament
can alter the boundaries of States or name of existing States

 Article 352 and 356 can be used to prevent any secessionist tendency

3. Is the exercise of the central authority as it reaches all citizens directly independent of the
individual approval and resources of the component units?

 US Constitution in Article 1 section 8 gave powers to Congress to lay and collect

taxes, duties, imposts and excise

 Indian Constitution provides power in favor of Central Govt. to levy direct taxes
 Subjects in schedule VII and Articles 268-281
 In Finance resources Central Authority is powerful

4. Who has Ultimate Control over the Amendments to the federal Constitutions?

 In US Article V provides the manner in which amendments can be made to the

Constitution

 Any amendments to US Constitution requires the ratification by 3/4th States

 In India under Article 368 there is no requirement of ratification by the States for all
Constitutional Amendments

18
74 U.S. 700 (1869)
  Articles 368(2) provides that only for the Amendment of Articles 54,55,73,162,241
and 7th Schedule the assent of the States are required.

5. Are the Component Units immune to elimination of their identity and authority?

 All 50 States of America is having the immunity- States are indestructible Units,
having separate Constitution

 In India the position is different , territories of the State are Specified in Schedule I

 Under Article2 parliament is having the power to admit and establish new states

 Under Article 3 (a) Parliament can alter the boundaries of States or name of existing
States

 In India union can change the identity of the State

6. Is the Collective Sharing in federal rule making adequately secured by equal representation
of unequal units in a bicameral system?

 In US every State is equally represented in the Senate

 Every state can send two representatives to the Senate

 In India there is no equal sharing in the federal rule making

 Allocation of seats in Rajya Sabha ( Council of States) is provided in Schedule IV

read with Article 80(2)

8. Is there a judicial authority in the central authority but Standing above that Central
Authority and the Components Units to determine their respective rights?

 In US the supreme court stands above the central authority and the component units

 The rights of the units can be determined by the SC in the event of conflict between
the federal and the state government or among the states, this fall within the original
jurisdiction of SC

 In India Judicial Review is explicitly provided under Article 13(2) with 14,32,226

 Article 131 speaks about original jurisdiction of SC in any intra-federal dispute, the
dispute between Govt of India and one or more states, or between two or more states
9. Have the component units retain all the powers that the constitution has not given to the
central authority?

 Article 1 section 8 of US constitution mentions 18 subject matters on which the

federal government can legislate

 The residuary powers are with the component units

 In India residuary power is with the Central Government

 Only in limited specified matters State Govts have the law making power

10. Is the territorial division of authority is clear and unambiguous?

 Yes , the territorial division of authority is clear in India

 US. Article 1. section 8 provides 18 subject matters and residuary power with states

 In India constitutional makers provided schedule 7 and 3 lists which clearly provides
powers between Union and States and thereby ensures that clarity can be provided
and conflicts can be avoided.

While framing the Indian constitution, its drafting committee headed by Dr. Ambedkar, had
borrowed many salient features from various constitutions in the world including US but
adopted them in the Indian context. Hence, both U.S and India, despite being federal in
structure have many similarities and differences between them.

Similarities between US and India:-

1) Written constitution:-

Both US and India have a written constitution based on which the federal political structure
has been set up and both federal governments are functioning. Both constitutions have
provisions for amending the constitution to meet the growing socio, political and economic
needs and demands of their respective countries.

2) Bill of Rights and Fundamental Rights:-

The US constitution has ensured the fundamental rights of its citizens like right to equality,
freedom, right against exploitation, freedom of religion, cultural and educational rights, right
to property, and right to constitutional remedies etc through ‘The Bill of Rights’,. They
became part and parcel of the US constitution through first ten amendments that were carried
out and adopted into the US constitution. The Indian constitution has guaranteed the
fundamental rights of the people through articles 14 to 34 in Part III.

3) Supremacy of the Federal or Union Government:-

Both countries have federal governments at the centre in which various states have acceded
to. In the US as many as 50 states have joined the federal government and in the Indian
Union as many as 29 states and 8 Union territories have acceded to. Both in US and India,
states which have acceded to the Federal set up have no unilateral power to secede from the
Federal Government or the Union Government. While Federal Government or the Union
Government as well as the states are empowered to enact laws on a particular subject,(known
as concurrent powers),the law enacted by the Federal or Union Government will have
overriding effect over the law enacted by the states on the same subject. Thus Federal or
Union Government is supreme in the present federal structure.

4) Division of Labour and Separation of Powers:-

Adhering to Montesquieu's theory of division of labour and separation of powers, both US

and Indian constitutions have three basic divisions with regard to division of labour and
power in their federal set up known as executive, legislature and judiciary with clear cut
‘Separation of Powers’ Each division has been entrusted with a separate power. The
executive governs the country, the legislature enacts laws and the judiciary administers
justice. President of US is the chief executive head of US, whereas the Union cabinet headed
by the Prime Minister is the real chief executive body in India. Both US and India have a
bicameral legislature. US legislature has an upper and lower house known as the House of
Senate and the House of Representatives respectively and the Indian Parliament has Lok
Sabha and Rajya Sabha as its Lower and Upper house respectively. Both US and India have a
well organized judiciary, having the Supreme Court or the Federal Court as the apex court
and a number of other courts in various states to administer original and appellate
jurisdictions.
5) Powers of Checks and Balances:-

Though there exists a clear cut division of labor known as separation of powers into
executive, legislature and judiciary in both countries, still there is a threat. to democracy. A
strong and dynamic leadership at the helm of powers as the executive and acting with
unlimited powers may lead to arbitrariness. After all power corrupts power; absolute power
corrupts absolutely; in the result democracy may become a laughing stock and virtually
unworkable. Hence, in order to prevent unwieldy growth of any one of these three divisions,
a fantastic mechanism known as powers of ‘checks and balances’ has been maintained in
both countries. In other words, each division of power is somehow or other checked and
controlled by other divisions of power.

In the US, the President as the chief executive power appoints his members of ‘Kitchen
Cabinet’ and he is the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of Army, Navy and the Air Force. He
appoints the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the US. He enters into treaties with other
countries. However, his treaties must be approved by the House of Senate. Otherwise, the
treaty will not come into force. Though President Woodrow Wilson was the chief architect of
the League of Nations that came into being after the first world war, US could not become a
member of it since the House of Senate did not approve it. Thus important policy decisions
must be necessarily approved by the House of Senate, which definitely acts as a check on the
powers of US President, who is the head of the executive. Similarly laws enacted by both
houses may be subjected to the power of Judicial Review and can be declared null and void
by the judiciary. The President can be impeached and removed from power on the motion
moved by the House of Senate in the presence of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of
the US.

Similarly in India, the Prime Minister and his cabinet can be removed from power by a
successful no confidence motion passed by both houses of parliament. The important policy
decisions taken by the cabinet headed by the Prime Minister, if necessary has to be enacted
into laws only with the requisite majority of the parliament. The laws enacted by the
parliament are subject to the judicial review of the Supreme Court of India. The Chief Justice
and other Judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President as recommended by
the cabinet and the Prime Minister.
Thus the powers of checks and balances have been the effective mechanism both in the US
and in India in safeguarding the democracy in both countries.

Differences between the federalisms of US and India:-

The differences that exist between the federalisms of US and India are unique. These
differences have been wantonly created by the architects of the Indian constitution. The US
federalism is very strong and more rigid as envisaged in their constitution by its leaders. It is
more federal than unitary.in character. Whereas, India is more unitary than federal and we
can even say that it is a quasi-federal state.

1) The Constitution of US is very rigid than the Indian Constitution:-

i) The constitution of US is very brief and rigid running into only a few pages, whereas the
constitution of India is very voluminous containing as many as XXII parts, 395 articles and
ten schedules. Since the US constitution is very rigid, the provisions meant for amending the
constitution are also very rigid and more formal. The last amendment carried out in the US
constitution was in the year 1992. Between the period 1989 and 1992, the US constitution has
been amended only 27 times, in which the 21st amendment was to reverse the 18th
amendment Whereas, the Indian constitution which came into force in the year 1950, has so
far been amended 94 times. Therefore, it is easy to amend the Indian constitution, since it
involves four different types of procedures which are comparatively easy than the amending
procedure of the US constitution. For example, recently, the salaries and allowances of the
Indian MPs have been hiked through a voice vote of the members of the Indian Parliament,
whereas in the US, the 27th amendment originally proposed on 25th September, 1789, was
ratified on May 7th, 1992, regulating the provision for varying the compensation of the
members of the House of Senate and Representatives.

ii) In the US, though there is a Federal Constitution, all the states affiliated with the Federal
Government, owing their allegiance to the Federal Constitution, have their own constitutions
to regulate their own governance. In India, all the states affiliated with the Indian Union owe
their allegiance only to the Indian constitution and do not have their own constitution;
however, each state is empowered to enact its own laws included in the state as well as in the
concurrent list of the constitution.
2) While US has the Presidential form of Government, India has the Parliamentary
form of Government:-

In the US, the President is the head of the state and so his government is invariably
mentioned as the Presidential form of government or democracy; In India, the President is
only a nominal head or titular sovereign power;(de jure sovereign), whereas the Prime
Minister and his cabinet is the de facto or popular sovereign in whom the real power exists. In
the US, the President is popularly elected, besides chosen through an electoral college.

However, nominating a candidate for contesting the Presidential election by a political party
in the US is a cumbersome process. This process is comparatively simpler than the Indian
system of forming the cabinet and electing the Prime Minister from a party which enjoys a
majority of elected members of the Lok Sabha. While the US follows the bi-party system,
India has a multi-party system and a complicated process of election. While the US President
holds power for a period of 4 years, while the Indian Prime Minister holds power for five
years as long as his political party enjoys majority in the Lok Sabha. However, the US
President irrespective of his affiliation with a political party, Republican or Democrat and
irrespective of his party’s success or failure in the elections for the House of Representatives
or the House of Senate, holds power for his full tenure.

A person in the US can hold the post of President only for two terms, whereas, in India there
is no such restriction to hold the post of a Prime Minister or President. For example, Nehru
was the Prime Minister of India between 1947 and 1964 for a period of 17 years.

The Indian cabinet and the Prime Minister are collectively and directly responsible and
answerable to the parliament and indirectly to the people, whereas, the US President has
constitutional obligations and duties and of course answerable to the people. For the
dereliction of duty and blunder committed by a cabinet minister in India, the Prime Minister
and his entire cabinet colleagues are liable, responsible and answerable, because they have
collective responsibilities.
3) Differences between the legislatures of US and India:-

In India, the lower house or the Lok Sabha is more powerful and its members are directly
elected by the people and the members of the Upper house or Rajya Sabha are indirectly
elected every two years. The Lok Sabha members represent their constituencies on the basis
of their population strength; In the US, the House of Representatives are elected on the basis
of the population strength of a state, but irrespective of the size of the state or its population,
each state in the US has only two senate members, totalling 100 members in all in the US.
While the Lok Sabha or the lower house is more powerful in India, the House of Senate or
the upper house is more powerful in the US. While a Senate member in the US is directly
elected, a Rajya Sabha member in India is indirectly elected by a system of proportional and
transferable voting system.

4) Differences in the judicial system between US and India:-

While the US has an advanced judicial system, India has a rapidly developing judicial
system. An accused or a witness in the US can depose from the place where he is imprisoned,
thereby avoiding unnecessary travel all the way from Chicago or Los Angeles to New York
using the advanced technology. Such facilities are yet to develop in India. While a Judge in
the US can hold his post for life as long as he enjoys his good health, in India it is slightly
different. A District judge unless elevated retires at the age of 58, a High Court and a
Supreme court Judge retires at the age of 65.

CONCLUSION

On introspection of the aforesaid study, it has been emphasized that apart from the general
scheme of our constitution towards vesting of large powers in the centre can assume
extraordinary powers in respect of the administration of the states. One such contingency is
the proclamation of emergency under article 352, while the other contingency is the
assumption by the president of all or any of the powers of the state government under article
356. In view of the far reaching consequences it is necessary to ensure that resort had to
either of these measures only in circumstances warranted by the constitution and keeping in
view the provisions thereof both in letter and spirit.
The concept of classical federalism has fuelled important debates about essential elements of
the most stable and successful federal system. But lessons drawn from states like USA often
do not apply to more volatile conditions, such as those facing states seeking to recover from
ethnic conflict.

In both democracies, the degree to which their version of federalism is effective depends on
the extent of compatibility between the country’s political actors. In the U.S., polarization is
on the rise, possibly because the institutions of democracy created centuries ago are no longer
adequate to address current issues.

In India, the political machinery must address the continuing challenges of secessionist
movements and unresolved problems with neighbouring countries. The demands of a
growing middle class and a better educated, digitally-connected youthful demography in a
slowing economy plagued by corruption are also becoming louder.

These, and other challenges, can be addressed only if the central and state governments work
together more harmoniously than in the past to craft policy frameworks and administrative
structures that are suited to the complex economic space India inhabits in the globalised
world today.
BIBLOGRAPHY

BOOKS REFFERED

 The constitution of the United States of America by Mark Tushnet

 Constitution of India V.N. Shukla’s 12th edition
 American constitutional law by Stephens 3rd edition
 American constitution law by Otis H. Stephens, Jr. 5th edition
 Comparative constitutional law by Hon’ble Mr. Justice BP Banerjee and Prof. BM
Gandhi 2nd edition
 Federal India by Colonel KN Haksar and K.M. Panikkar , Amol publications
 Making of India’s constitution by HR Khanna, eastern book company
 Comapitive constitutional law, edited by Tom Ginsburg and Rosalind Dixon

WEBSITES REFERERED

 www.manupatra.com
 www.indiankanoon.com
 www.heinonline.com
 Lexis Nexus
 Indian Law Journal

REFRENCE CITED

 https://blog.ipleaders.in/difference-us-indian-federalism/
 https://general-law.knoji.com/the-similarities-and-differences-between-american-
federalism-and-indian-federalism/
 Theviewspaper.net/a-comparative-study-of-the-usa-government-with-india/
 https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-differences-between-the-Indian-and-American-
constitutions
 http://arosebyanyothernameca.weebly.com/the-differences-and-similarities-between-
the-constitutions-of-india-and-the-us.html
 http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/federalism-137-1.html