Muskan Gangwar

Centre Supremacy or State
Autonomy-
A comparative study between
USA and India
Presented to : Dr. R.K. Presented by : Muskan
Singh Gangwar
TABLE OF CONTENTS
01 FEDERALISM 02 COMPARISIO
N OF
FEDERALISM
03 CONCLUSION
01
FEDERALISM
Federalism can be simply defined as a form of government where there is
interdependence of central government at the national level with its
constituent units at the regional, state, or local levels.
FEDERALISM
• It basically means sharing of decision making authority and
devolution of power between the national and local governmental
units, such that each unit is delegated a sphere of power and
authority only it can exercise, while other powers must be shared.
• Federation should work on a mutually interdependent political

leadership where equilibrium is to be maintained so that neither of
the levels of government becomes dominant to an extent that it can
dictate the decision of the other.
FEDERA
•
LISM
To draw a parallel between systems of government, a federal polity involves a dual system of
government (national government and state government) as compared to a unitary system
where a single-central government is cardinal and ultimate.
• A classic example of a unitary state is the United Kingdom wherein Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland have a degree of autonomous devolved power delegated by the Parliament of
The United Kingdom, which may unilaterally alter or abolish devolution.
• In a Unitary state, units derive power from Central Legislature i.e. Union > Units. In
Confederation, it is an alliance between independent states where units can secede i.e. Units >
Union and when Union and Units are co-equal, it is a federation with each unit being sovereign
in its own sphere due to division of legislative powers. Therefore, in federalism, unions and
units are indestructible.
02
Comparison of
federalism between the
U.S.A and India
To decipher this issue, we can draw a parallel to our constitution by comparing it with the five yardsticks of
Federalism as provided by Ivo D.Duchacek and comparing it with the Federalism in United States of
America.
YARDS -
TICK
Power to levy Tax
The two main questions here are:
01
1. Can union directly tax people without state’s permission?
2. Can union directly reach people and provide welfare without state’s permission?
Yardstick 01 – Power to levy
Tax
USA
• The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defense and general Welfare of the United States.
In 1913, The Sixteenth Amendment gave the Congress the right
to impose income taxes “without apportionment among the several
States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
Yardstick 1 – Power to levy
Tax
India
• In India, the Union Government is independent of the constituent units and
can levy direct taxes and enforce federal laws. The tax heads or bases have
been specifically mentioned in the Constitution itself, and divided between
the Union and the States.
• Along with the tax bases mentioned in Schedule VII, Article 268 to 281 also
speak about the tax sharing between them. Further, the Union property is
exempted from the state taxes and vice versa.
• Thus, the Central authority is very much independent of the individual

approval and resources of the component units with regard to the financial
as well as other resources.
YARDS -
TICK
Amendment
In dissecting the text of any constitution,
02
This is the most steadfast and reliable yardstick to identify the
federal structure of the state.
Yardstick 02 – Amendment USA
Under Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution,
To propose amendments:
• By Congress: 2/3rd of both the houses
• By application of legislature: 2/3rd of several states
• For ratification: 3/4th of several states
Exception:
1. No amendment shall affect the first and fourth clause in ninth
section of the first article.
2. No state shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Yardstick 02 – Amendment India
• Under the Indian Constitution the power and procedure for Amendments have
been provided under Article 4, Schedule VI and principally under Article 368
of the Constitution.
• The power to initiate the amendments is vested with the union in all the cases.
There is no need for the ratification by the states for all amendments.
• However, Article 368(2) identifies certain types of Amendments, which
essentially need the ratification by at least half of the states. The Amendments,
which need such ratification by at least half of the states, are provided under
Article 368 (2) (a) to (e).
• Thus, it is clear that when Amendments are likely to be affecting the federal
structure to some extent, ratification by not less than half of the States is
necessary.
YARDS -
TICK
Residuary Power
03
Do States retain all the powers that the constitution has not given to
the central authority? And are these retained powers significant or
marginal?
Yardstick 03 – Residuary
Power
USA
• Article 1, Section 8 of U.S Constitution provides for 18 subject
matters for the center to legislate upon and is restricted. The
remaining power is with the States. Thus residuary power is with
states.
Yardstick 03 – Residuary
Power
India
• In India, exhaustive lists are prepared which chalks out the various areas of
the Centre and States. There never arose any question of residuary power.
But then too, if any entry is not mentioned in any of the three lists, then the
Centre has the authority over it. Thus residuary power is with Centre.
YARDS -
TICK
Secession
04
Is Federal Union constitutionally immune against dissolution by secession?
Yardstick 04 – Secession USA
• Article 4, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution clearly says that no new
states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other
state without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as
well as of the Congress.
• Further banking on Texas v. White, it was concluded that that

constitutional limitation is necessary to prevent concentration of
power on either National or State level.
• Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase commented that the federal

Constitution “in all its provisions looks to an indestructible Union,
composed of indestructible States.” Thus, it may be concluded that no
state may secede from the union from the U.S. Constitution.
Yardstick 04 – Secession India
• The constitution of India declares that India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union
of States. It empowers Parliament to admit into the Union, or establish, new
States on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit.
• Further Parliament can by law form a new State by separation of territory
from any State or by uniting two or more States or parts of States or by
uniting any territory to a part of any State; increasing the area of any
State; diminishing the area of any State; altering the boundaries of any
State; or altering the name of any State.
• On a conjoint reading of these Articles, it becomes clear that Parliament has the
right to form new States, alter the areas of existing States, or the name of any
existing State. Thus the Constitution permits changes in the territorial
limits of the States and does not guarantee their territorial integrity. Even
names can be changed.
Yardstick 04 – Secession India
• Under Article 2 it is left to the Parliament to determine the terms and
conditions on which it may admit any area into the Union or establish new
States. In doing so, it has not to seek the concurrence of the State whose area,
boundary or name is likely to be affected by the proposal.
• All that the proviso to Article 3 requires is that in such cases the President
shall refer the Bill to the legislatures of the concerned States likely to be
affected ‘to express their views’.
• Once the views of the States are known, it is left to Parliament to decide ‘on the
proposed changes. The Parliament can, therefore, without the concurrence of
the concerned State or States change the boundaries of the State or increase or
diminish its area or change its name. These provisions show that in the matter
of Constitution of States, Parliament is paramount.
YARDS -
TICK
Rule making power
05
Has the Central Authority exclusive control over diplomacy and defense
as befits a nation-state in its relations with other
nation-states?
Yardstick 05 – Rule making
power
USA
• Generally, in a federation, Central government has the ultimate
control over major issues in foreign policy and conduct of peaceful or
violent international relations.
• The United States Constitution, for instance, prescribes under

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S Constitution that the
ultimate control of defense and diplomacy is with Central
Government.
power
India
• Indian Constitution in its seventh schedule includes entries related to
diplomacy and defense, war and peace, treatise, the United Nations,
pilgrimages outside India, piracies and crimes committed on the high seas
or in the air and offences against international law in the Union list, which
gives power to the Union government.

• List 1 of Schedule VII gives powers to the union government that are
exclusive to the union and states cannot interfere with exercise of these
powers. Apart from this, Article 53(2) vests the President with the Supreme
Command of the Defense Forces of the Union. Article 352, 353 and 355 also
speak about the Union’s power during the times of national emergency.
power
India
• Article 51, which speaks about the promotion of international peace and
security, is also provided under the Directive Principle of State Policy. The
existence of these powers under the Indian Constitution is more elaborate than in
the American Constitution. Thus the Indian Constitution answers the this
yardstick of federalism more positively than the American Constitution.

04
CONCLU
SION
Conclusio
n
• The federalism structure of the United States and India is somewhat
different, but both structures have performed effectively and
preserved national independence with a different history and
challenges.
• It can also be inferred that certain federalist characteristics are
common to both India and the United States. On the other hand, the
federal character of India and the USA differ in many regions. But
both the United States and the Indian federalism are very popular
despite their limitations.
THANK
YOU

Muskan Gangwar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Muskan Gangwar

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Muskan Gangwar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Centre Supremacy or State

• Federation should work on a mutually interdependent political

• Thus, the Central authority is very much independent of the individual

• Further banking on Texas v. White, it was concluded that that

• Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase commented that the federal

• The United States Constitution, for instance, prescribes under

gives power to the Union government.

yardstick of federalism more positively than the American Constitution.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.