Supreme Court Has Created Robust Jurisprudential Framework To Strengthen Federalism, Ensure State Rights Are Protected: CJI DY Chandrachud
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud recently highlighted the role of the Supreme Court in shaping the landscape of Federalism in India and upholding the balance of Centre- State relations.The CJI was speaking at Loksatta Lecture Series on the topic of Understanding Federalism and Its Potential. He expressed, “ The Court has, in the last few decades evolved a robust jurisprudential...
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud recently highlighted the role of the Supreme Court in shaping the landscape of Federalism in India and upholding the balance of Centre- State relations.
The CJI was speaking at Loksatta Lecture Series on the topic of Understanding Federalism and Its Potential.
He expressed, “ The Court has, in the last few decades evolved a robust jurisprudential framework on federalism to ensure that the State rights are protected, the identity of various communities are fostered and values of representation are promoted.”
The CJI emphasized that the Indian Constitution is very detailed about how power is shared between the central and state governments. This is different from the United States Constitution. When deciding cases about federal power limits, the Indian Supreme Court turns to past decisions and how the Constitution is interpreted, rather than political factors.
Speaking of his recent decision in Mineral Area Development Authority v. M/S Steel Authority Of India & Ors, where the Court by an 8:1 majority held that States have the power to levy tax on mineral rights, the CJI remarked:
“We were cognisant of the reality that different States in the country are differently endowed with mineral resources. Interestingly, this was an instance where federalism impacted not only the state's political and fiscal rights but also its ability to deliver welfare measures. We drew heavily from these factual realities, the concepts of resource federalism, and 'fiscal federalism' .”
Federalism In The Centripetal v Centrifugal Era
The CJI viewed the decision in SR Bommai v. Union of India as a breakthrough in the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on federalism.
The pre-SR Bommai regime, according to him, was the Centripetal Era - where more power was interpreted towards the Centre and less towards the states. After the Bommai judgment, the centrifugal era began. In this period, the Court's interpretations have given more autonomy to the states. The Bommai case stressed the importance of preserving state powers, stating that states are not just add-ons to the central government.
“I term the era before the judgment of the Supreme Court in SR Bommai v. Union of India as the centripetal era. Here, the Court adopted interpretations with a centripetal impact, that is, it had a centralizing tendency which led to an accumulation of power with the Center and away from the federating States.”
“ I term the era after the judgment in Bommai as the centrifugal era. In this period, the Court has opted for an interpretation that has a centrifugal impact, that is, an interpretation that enhances the autonomy of federating states. In Bommai, the Supreme Court laid great emphasis on preserving the powers of the States. States, it was held, were not mere appendages of the Centre and the Court could not take a route that whittled down the powers of the States.”
The CJI illustrated this further with the example interpretation of Article 200 of the Constitution in the decision of The State Of Punjab v Principal Secretary To The Governor Of Punjab And Anr.
Article 200 of the Indian Constitution gives Governors three options when a state legislature passes a bill : (1) Give assent to the bill; (2)Withhold assent; (3) Reserve the bill for the President's consideration.
The Court had to decide if governors could indefinitely withhold assent, effectively vetoing bills passed by elected state governments. It was however ruled that this was not allowed, as it would be against federalism and the ideals of representative governance.
“The question before a Bench headed by me was on the scope of the second option. That is, whether the Governor can indefinitely withhold assent to the Bill, in which case the Bill will die a “natural death.” If this contention were accepted, it would have meant that the Governor could veto Bills passed by an elected government in the State.”
“We held that the second option cannot be read to confer a veto to the Governor, for that would erode the principle of federalism and representative governance.We read the proviso to the provision as an explanation for the second option: that a Governor can withhold the assent to the Bill only to send the Bill for reconsideration.”
In conclusion, the CJI emphasized that federalism is moving beyond merely adjusting legislative powers. In the coming years, it should be judged on how well it promotes democracy and upholds constitutional ideals. These ideals include equality, liberty, dignity, and fraternity.
“ If federalism in the years gone by was about adjusting to the political realities of the country in terms of legislative powers; in the years to come, federalism should be evaluated based on its ability to foster democracy and constitutional ideals of equality, liberty, dignity and fraternity. States and the Union are both creatures of the Constitution.”
“They must act in synergy, cooperation, and constitutional deference to their legislative boundaries in finding meaningful solutions to modern- day problems. Our ability to address these challenges, in my view, is the litmus test for our imperfect federalism and the framers' faith in it. I hope and wish that we eventually find these solutions in cooperation and mutual allegiance to the common constitutional goals of the federating units.”