Indian Federalism — How Center-State Relations Actually Work
Article 1 of the Indian Constitution calls India a 'Union of States'. The choice of words was deliberate. The Constituent Assembly considered and rejected the word 'federation'. India was designed to be a federal system with a strong centre — a category political scientists call quasi-federal or unitarian-federal. Most disputes between the central government and state governments trace back to this design choice.
What states can do
Schedule VII of the Constitution divides legislative subjects into three Lists. The State List (Subject Nos 1–66) covers subjects where states have exclusive legislative competence: police, public order, agriculture, water (within the state), local government, public health, and land. The Union List (1–97) covers central exclusive subjects: defence, foreign affairs, currency, atomic energy, railways. The Concurrent List (1–47) covers shared subjects: criminal law, education, marriage, bankruptcy, social planning.
Where the asymmetry shows up
Three structural asymmetries favour the centre. First, Article 248 gives the centre residuary powers — anything not in any list defaults to the Union. Second, Article 249 lets the Rajya Sabha authorise Parliament to legislate on State subjects if it deems them of national importance (two-thirds vote required). Third, Article 254 says that if a state law and a central law on a Concurrent subject conflict, the central law prevails (unless the state law has Presidential assent).
Together, these mean that in any contested area, the central government has more constitutional levers than the state. The federal balance is structurally tilted.
Fiscal federalism — the GST shift
The Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016, which introduced the Goods and Services Tax, restructured fiscal federalism. Before GST, states had independent tax bases (sales tax, entry tax, octroi). After GST, those bases were subsumed into a centrally-administered tax with revenue shared between centre and states according to a formula.
The trade-off: GST eliminated the cascading effect of multiple state taxes (which made business cheaper) but reduced state-level fiscal autonomy (states can no longer raise specific taxes to fund specific local priorities). The GST Council, where states have voting power, is the new venue for fiscal negotiation. Whether the trade-off was worth it is contested.
When the centre intervenes in states
Article 356 — President's Rule — allows the central government to dismiss a state government on grounds of constitutional breakdown. It has been invoked over 130 times since 1950. The Supreme Court's S R Bommai judgment (1994) significantly restricted its scope, requiring presidential proclamations to be justiciable. Article 356 is still used, but more rarely and with stronger judicial scrutiny.
Other intervention tools: appointment of governors (who are central appointees with state-level roles), central control over inter-state river disputes, and central deployment of CISF/paramilitary in states.
What states have done to push back
Three mechanisms. First, opposition-ruled state governments have used the Supreme Court to challenge central laws on procedural grounds (the most prominent recent example is the Kerala v Union of India dispute over the Governor's withholding of assent). Second, states use the GST Council to extract revenue commitments. Third, regional parties leverage Rajya Sabha numbers to block central legislation, since Rajya Sabha members represent state legislative assemblies.
What CJP's manifesto implies for federalism
Two of the 5 Demands — the 20-year defection ban and the 50% women cabinet — would change state-level politics as much as central. Defection bans freeze state-level political maps in their current shape. The women's cabinet requirement, if applied at the state level, would require state Chief Ministers to publish their cabinet compositions against the same standard. Neither is anti-federal, but both would change the rhythm of state-level politics.
Further reading
Federalism in India on Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_India. Constitution of India: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_India. The S R Bommai (1994) and Kihoto Hollohan (1992) judgments are on the Supreme Court website.
“Main bhi cockroach. Tum bhi banno.”