Introduction

The United States and India are the world’s largest democratic countries and
are focused on their constitutional system of federalism. The US became a
federal republic State by upholding its Constitution in the year 1789; while
India became a secular, socialist, sovereign, the democratic republic by
formally launching its Constitution only in the year 1950. Hence, both
countries had acquired the status of dominion in which many smaller states
had become aligned to form a union with a strong Central Government that
had come to be called. Both States were then federal republics. During its
drafting committee chaired by Dr. Ambedkar, the Indian Constitution was
conceived with many outstanding features in the world like America but was
adopted in the Indian sense. The Indian Constitution was established. There
are also many similarities and distinctions between both the United States
and India, although they are federal.

The term “Federalism”

In a nation, federalism is a constitutional structure that typically establishes
two levels of government with delegated powers and roles resulting from
several social, economic, cultural, and political factors. It is part of the power
dispersion in establishing political order, among other things, that is built-in
line with the principles of constitutional government. The federal values are
embedded in and defined by a mixture of autonomy and popular law. In the
broadest sense, federalism means connecting people, organizations, and
politics to a permanent yet restricted union in such a way as to ensure the
vigorous pursuit of common ends while preserving the respective
independence of both parties. Federalism as a political concept deals with
the constitutional allocation of power in such a way that the constituent units
of a federal system are part of the collective policy-making and
administration process by default, whereas the functions of the general
government are carried out in such a way as to preserve their respective
independence.

Federalism is a dynamic government structure for the governance of a

nation. It links many independent, distinct, and disparate bodies or
administrative units to a single political union. It attempts to strike a balance
between the forces fighting for the concentration of power at the central
point and the forces supporting the dispersal of power in a variety of units.
Federalism thus tries to reconcile unity with multiplicity, centralization with
decentralization, and nationalism with localism. The originality of the federal
form of control is both centralized and fragmented at the same time.
Administration and regulation are centralized in some regions along with
decentralization in other regions. The main features of federalism are the
constitutional government, the allocation of powers, and the supremacy of
the state, the independence of the judiciary, the written constitution,
decentralization, and the actual separation of power, while these concepts
are not comprehensive, they do include core elements of federalism.

The federal constitution creates a dual structure, consisting of two levels of

government —

1. A Central Government with jurisdiction over the entire country in

certain regions, and state governments;
2. Each of which exercises jurisdiction within specified regional
boundaries.
A resident of a federal country is subject to the decrees of two governments.
The majority of the powers and duties of the government are split between
the Center and the states. Thus, each level of government functions within
its assigned sector. However, most governments do not live in watertight
compartments.

They come into contact with each other at a variety of points and, as a
result, a host of inter-governmental ties emerge in a federal country. The
structure of these relationships is not static. It is dynamic, and in response
to the centripetal and centrifugal forces that operate in the country, the
equilibrium is constantly new and thus, the topic of intergovernmental
relations is of great importance.

Federalism in the US
The USA is a federal government. Article I lists the competences of the
national government and has been called ‘few and established’ by James
Madison. Few, maybe: Section 8 of Article I has 18 clauses, although some
are subdivided. And, to some degree, defined: the provision that gives
Congress authority to “create posts and postal roads” is not well understood.
Other laws were not so well known as obviously; since 1789 it has been
contested almost continuously for the importance of the clause granting the
Congress power “to control trade between the various States.” The powers
that the Constitution does not delegate to the United States are reserved for
the States or the people. Upholding the federal minimum wage law, Justice
Harlan Fiske Stone noted that, literally, this provision ‘states but a truism
that all is constrained and surrendered.’ Madison makes a useful statement:
‘Powers reserved for the various States shall cover all the objects which, in
the course of the ordinary business, concern people’s lives, freedoms and
property, and internal peace, improvements, and prosperity.

The Constitution of the United States says nothing about the governments of
the states that have control. State governments reflect the composition of
the national government: an elected chief executive, two legislative houses,
and the court. In addition to the basic proposal that state governments have
plenary power — that is, may make legislation on any subject — while
national governments only have specified powers, state governments
structurally vary from domestic governments in several respects. Each state
has a budget of its own. According to the US constitution, the National
Government does not need to be fiscal in check and has seldom done so in
recent years.

In some decisions of the Supreme Court in the 1990s, observers proclaimed

the beginning of the federalist movement. The Court found certain statutes
unconstitutional, as they had for the first time since 1936 violated federal
values. And at this point, the revolt looks more like a group of pitchforks
than a serious attempt to overthrow an enlargement of the national power
since the new deal. The key avenues of the national government power
centralization have been defined through the use of legislative authority in
intergovernmental trade regulations. Congress, inevitably, has other forces
and one, in particular, becomes more essential as the 20th century
continues. Congress has the authority to enact and levy taxes to maintain
America’s popular security to welfare.

The growth of the national government and in particular the implementation

of the sixteenth amendment, in which Congress approved the collection of
income taxes (1913), gave the tax authorities a stronger use. The key
consequences for the separation between States and the national
government of successful governance were conditional expenditure
programs. Given domestic fiscal capital, dependent spending power has
almost become as essential as the trade clause as a mechanism for
centralizing governing authority. The Court has shown little interest in
significant limits on dependent spending power. In the case of Texas V.
White, Chief Justice Salmon held that the United States is a Federation of
indestructible States. The union of states has never been a strictly artificial
and arbitrary arrangement. It started among the colonies and grew up with
shared roots, mutual understanding, common interests, and geographical
relationships. In the case of Chisholm vs. Georgia, the first major
constitutional ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court was made in 1793. It’s about
state sovereignty. Sovereign immunity has been a central feature of
sovereignty in the Anglo-American tradition. As already stated in Article
III of the Constitution, federal courts have authority over disputes between a
State and citizens of another State.

Federalism in India
Origin of the idea of federalism in India was first traced in the Commission
Simon, appointed “Indian Statutory Commission” in 1927. The Commission
was intended to revise the Indian Constitution. In its 1930 report, the
Commission recommended the development of India into a ‘federation of
self-government units.’ India emerged as a federation that had been relieved
of British Raj’s clutches. Several princely states, divided and governed, came
together to form the Indian Union. The pre-independence Center and
Provinces became a Union of countries with clear powers divided up into
three lists-Union, States, and concurrent lists. The former princely states
were replaced by the Indian Union, which later became the federal units.
Several such states have joined India and have become full members of the
Indian Union. When the Constitution of India entered into force, the
component units were grouped into four categories of States. A gradual
process was followed by the reorganization of the States, which continued
until the end of 1969. Ambedkar said that because the Indian Federation
was indissoluble it was a “Union” and no government was allowed to
separate from it. The federation is a union because it is an indestructible
strong center to secure the nation. In general terms, the ‘Confederation’ is
the structure in which the Units dominate the Union; in the Unitary State,
the Union dominates the Units. An alliance will be formed among
independent states in a Confederation where units can divide. Power is
derived from the Central Legislative Assembly in the United State.

The union is effectively dividing legislative authority, with each unit in its
position being sovereign. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar used the word Union to make
clear that States do not have the right to distinguish themselves from the
Union. He said that the Union was a federation and called it a versatile
federation to say that it was not as static as the American constitution was.
The founding fathers of the Constitution felt a need for a strong core due to
the existing social, economic, and political circumstances. At the Constituent
Assembly, Ambedkar stated: “The Constitution for India is a federal
Constitution insofar as it defines what may be referred to as a dual policy,
consisting of a Union at the Core and States at the periphery each with the
sovereign powers to be exercised in their respective areas of competence
under the Constitution.” There are five essentials necessary to be called as
federal and these are:
 1. The Constitution has to be written.
2. It has to be rigid.
3. It must be the supreme rule of the land;
4. The separation or transfer of powers between the Union or the
federal government and the different States or provinces may take
place.
5. An autonomous and impartial judiciary must be formed to interpret
the Constitution and the Rules.
However, the term ‘federation’ has not been used consciously. In the case
of Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court held that its
basic feature was the federal character of the Constitution. In the case of
the State of Rajasthan vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the
Constitution was an amphibian in the sense that it could travel either on a
federal or a unitary plane. Where the action is taken under Article 356, the
movement shall be on a unitary plane. Article 249 is a well-designed
provision intended to ensure greater consistency in the operation of the
union. States have the exclusive right to legislate on matters specified in the
State List. Article 249 allows for a situation in which the national interest
requires Parliament to be able to legislate on a matter in the State List only
if the Council of States agrees, by a two-thirds majority, that it is
appropriate in the national interest. In the case of State of Karnataka v.
Union of India & Anr, Justice Untwalia said that the Indian constitution is
strictly speaking not in a federal sense because it is possible to suggest that
a separate, autonomous, sovereign state has joined to form a country such
as in the United States of America or the role it has in some other countries
of the world. It is for this reason that it was often defined as quasi-federal.

A comparative analysis
The US and India are two of the world’s most influential nations, the former
being the oldest democracy in the world, and the latter being the largest
world democracy, both the United States and India have democratic
federalism. By promulgating its constitution in 1789 the US became a
Federal Republic State, while India was only formally founded as a Socialist,
Sovereign, Secular Democrat Republic in the 1950s. This led to a dominion
status for both countries where many smaller countries had joined to form a
union with a central government called the Federal Government in the
United States and the Central Government in India. The following is a
comparative study of the workings of federalism in both nations and to
clarify this, we can draw a comparison with our constitution by contrasting it
with Ivo D. Duchace’s principles of federalism.
Central Government

General regulation of major foreign policy issues and the operation of pacific
or aggressive international relations in a federation is supreme. In the US
Constitution, for example, the ultimate power of defense and diplomacy is
enforced by the central government under Article 1, Section 10 Clause 3 of
the US Constitution. While the Indian Constitution in its Seventh
Schedule contains entries in the list of powers bestowed on the Federal
Government concerning diplomacy and security, war and peace and the
Treaty, pilgrimages from outside the world, piracies, and crimes perpetrated
by air or by high sea and violations of international law. Section 1 of
Schedule VII confers powers on the Union Government which are unique to
the Union and the States can not interfere with the exercise of those powers.
Besides, Article 53(2) refers to the President with the Supreme Command of
the Union Defence Forces. Article 352, 353, and 355 also discuss the
strength of the Union in times of national emergency. Article 51, which
applies to the promotion of international peace and security, is also laid
down in the Concept of State Policy of the Directive. The nature of these
powers under the Indian Constitution is more nuanced than under the
American Constitution.

Amendments

This is the firmest and most accurate criterion for defining the federal
structure of the state by dissecting the text of every constitution. In
the United States Article 5 of the United States Constitution, it can be
achieved by Congress by asking 2/3 of both chambers to introduce
amendments. The implementation of the legislature of 2/3 of many states
can also recommend it. At least 3/4 of certain states must be accepted to be
ratified. There is also a certain provision, however, to the effect that no
amendment shall affect the first and fourth clauses of the ninth section of
the first article and that no State shall be deprived of the same suffrage in
the Senate.

The Indian Constitution provides for the power and process to amend Article
4, Schedule VI and, in particular, Article 368 of the Constitution. In all
instances, the right to enact amendments is bestowed on the Union. For all
amendments, there is no need for ratification by the States. However, Article
368(2) distinguishes certain types of amendments which, in essence, require
ratification by at least half of the States. The amendments requiring such
ratification by at least half of the States shall be made according to points
(a) to (e) of Article 368(2). It is also clear that approval by not less than half
of the States is needed if reforms have a certain effect on the federal
structure.

Centre and state working

Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution provides for 18 subjects to be

legislated and limited by the middle. The majority of the authority is with the
Nations. And the residual power is with the states.

In India, exhaustive lists are drawn up which cover the different areas of the
Center and the states. No question of residual power ever arose. But then, if
there is no entry in any of the three lists, the Center shall have the authority
to do so. Thus, the residual power is with the Center.

Union and secession

As per Article 4 of Section 3 of the U.S Constitution, it is clear that, without

agreement between the legislatures of the States concerned and the
Congress, no new State shall be created or established beyond the
competence of any other State. Thus, it can be inferred that no State will
withdraw from the U.S. Constitution from the union.

Article 1 of The Constitution of India states that India is a Union of

States. Article 2 empowers Parliament to admit or form new States within
the Union on such terms and conditions as it considers necessary. Further
under Article 3, the Parliament may, by statute, create a new State by
separating the territory from any State or by uniting two or more States or
parts of States or by uniting any territory to any part of any State; by
raising the area of any State; by reducing the area of any State; by altering
the borders of any State; or by changing the name of any State.

The Parliament is therefore entitled to create new states, to modify current

Member States’ regions, and to change the names of every current State.
Therefore the Constitution provides for modifications to the geographical
limits and does not protect the territorial integrity of the States. It is also
possible to change names. According to Article 2, the terms and conditions
for the admission of any region into the Union or for the creation of a new
state must be defined by the Parliament. In so doing, it is not to seek rivalry
between the State of which the proposal is likely to affect its territory,
boundary, or name. All that Article 3 requires is for the President to send the
Bill “to express his opinions” in such cases to the legislatures of the
concerned States. If the opinions of the Member States are known, it is left
to Parliament to vote on the proposed amendments.’ The Parliament can,
therefore, without the competition of the State or States concerned, alter
the boundaries of the State or increase or decrease its area or change its
name. These clauses indicate that Parliament is of utmost importance in the
matter of the Constitution of States.

Rulemaking

The Connecticut compromise, where the American founders agreed to

proportionate representation in the lower house of unequal states and equal
representation of unequal states (2 senators per state) in the upper house
was also regarded by Americans as an integral measure of federalism. The
United States is bicameral, as the two houses are similar in law matters: no
legislation can be passed without the agreement of the two houses on the
same text.

In India, mutual participation in federal rulemaking is assured by an

equitable representation of equitable units in the bicameral structure.
Under Schedule IV of the Constitution, seats are to be assigned to the States
in the Council of States in the Parliament. Other than that, the President of
the Council of States has nominated twelve members. This brings Rajya
Sabha’s total strength to 250.

Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court of the United States has authority over the country as a
whole but only through federal law. The States have their constitutions and
their own rules and their own Supreme Court.

In India, there is only one system of courts with the Supreme Court at the
top and the High courts of the different states at the lower level. Both have
the right to adjudicate federal as well as state legislation.
Judicial authority

In the U.S., there is this principle of judicial review where the Supreme
Court has the authority to resolve a central-state dispute. McCulloch v.
Maryland is the classic example of a central state dispute where judicial
review has been used.

According to Article 131, the Supreme Court of India has the initial authority
to address a central state dispute. Moreover, judicial review is a fundamental
function of the Indian Constitution, as laid down in Article 13(2), read
at 14, 32, 226.

The key difference between the US and Indian federalism

Some gaps exist between US and Indian federalism. These differences were
created by the creators of the Indian Constitution. The US federalism, as
envisaged by its representatives in its Constitution, is very powerful and
more rigid. It has a regional character rather than a unitary one. Though
India is unitary rather than federal, it is a quasi-federal state.

Rigidity

The Constitution of the United States is very concise and compact, with just
a few pages, while the Constitution of India is very dense, comprising as
many as XXII sections, 395 articles, and 10 schedules. Since the US
constitution is very strict, the laws intended to amend the constitution are
also very rigid and more formal. The US Constitution has only been changed
27 times. Whereas the Constitution of India, which entered into force in
1950, has so far been amended 94 times. While a federal Constitution exists
in the US, all federal government states have their Constitutions to rule
themselves by their loyalty to the federal Constitution. In India, all States
that are aligned with the Indian Union have a commitment to the Indian
Constitution and no constitution of their own, but each state has the right to
pass the laws of its own that are included in both the state and the
concurrent lists.
Legislature working

The lower house or Lok Sabha in India is stronger and its representatives are
elected directly and indirectly every two years by the people and
representatives of the upper house or Rajya Sabha. The members of Lok
Sabha serve their electorate on a population basis. The House of
Representatives is elected in the US-based on the population of a state but
each state in the USA has only two senate members, totalling a hundred
members in the United States, irrespective of the size of the state or
population. Whereas the Lok Sabha and lower house in India are stronger,
the Senate House or the upper house is stronger in the United States. A
Rajya Sabha member in India is indirectly elected by a system of
proportional and transferable voting, while in the USA a Senate member is
elected directly.

Judicial working

While the United States has an established judicial system, the Indian
judicial system is rapidly evolving. An accused or a witness in the United
States will depose from his place of incarceration, preventing the use of
modern technology and excessive trips to New York from Chicago or Los
Angeles. Such facilities in India are yet to be built. While a judge in the
United States can hold the post for life as long as he enjoys good health, it is
slightly different in India. In India. A judge in the District, except for high-
ranking retires at the age of 58, retires at the age of 65 from the high court
and the high-ranking judge.

Forms of government

The president is the head of the state in the U.S. and thus his administration
is popularly referred to as the presidential form of government. India, on the
other hand, has a legislative system of government, while the Prime Minister
exercises real power with his cabinet, with the President being only a
nominal head. For a term of four years, the President of the United States
has a five-year control while the Indian Prime Minister retains a majority in
Lok Sabha. Although the United States is following the two-party rule, India
has a multi-party system and a dynamic selection mechanism. The Indian
Cabinet and the Prime Minister are accountable jointly both directly and
indirectly to the Parliament and the people, while the US President has
constitutional duties and responsibilities and, of course, to the people. The
Prime Minister and all his cabinet members, because of joint responsibility,
are accountable, liable, and responsible for a failure to perform their duty
and blunder by a cabinet minister in India.

Citizenship

The Indian Constitution recognizes single citizenship. On the other hand, the
United States Constitution allows for double citizenship that can be a US
resident of two countries, the United States and another.

Although there are quite differences, there are also some ‘similarities’
between the two countries like both, the US and India Constitution have a
written Constitution, providing for a federal constitutional system under
which both Governments exercise their powers and privileges, with the right
to equality, to liberty, to the right to discrimination, to freedom of religion,
to cultural and educational privileges, to land, and the right of Constitution.
The federal government functions in both countries at the core in which
different states have acceded. In both the US and the Indian Constitutions
the division of powers between three entities-administrative, legislative, and
judicial-is given. Each division has a separate capability. While the powers
between executive, legislative, and judicial officers in both countries are
explicitly divided, these powers can also overlap. Chances are the authority
or arbitrariness is exploited. A “checks and balances” mechanism that
prevails in both countries is important.

Conclusion
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. Federalism is
like a rainbow, each colour is distinct, but they make a cohesive pattern
together. A fluid balance between the center and the States must be
preserved continuously by federalism. Ultimately, a community and a
collection of principles and virtues such as honesty, compassion, and the
spirit of cooperation must be established by the citizens and political
process. 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