Introduction
Indian federalism constitutes an 'indestructible union of destructible states' under Article 3 of the Constitution. To accommodate profound historical and socio-cultural diversity, the constitutional framework embeds asymmetric federalism through differential arrangements, such as Articles 371A–J, the Fifth and Sixth Schedules, and Union Territories with legislatures.
Protecting Regional Autonomy and Upholding Asymmetry
- Political Asymmetry (R.C. Poudyal v. Union of India, 1993): The Supreme Court upheld Sikkim's special status under Article 371F, affirming that asymmetric legislative representation accommodates distinct historical realities without violating the basic structure of the Constitution.
- Autonomy in Special Union Territories (Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, 2018/2023): The Court safeguarded the democratic mandate of Delhi—a uniquely positioned Union Territory under Article 239AA—by holding that the Lieutenant Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the elected Council of Ministers on non-reserved subjects.
- Fiscal Federalism (Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India, 2024): Reaffirmed the legislative competence of States under Entry 50 of List II to levy taxes on mineral rights, reinforcing regional economic independence.
Upholding Centralised Authority and National Integration
- Constitutional Integration (In Re: Article 370, 2023): Upheld the abrogation of Jammu and Kashmir's special status, establishing that internal sovereignty rests entirely with the Union and that asymmetric provisions cannot supersede national integration.
Conclusion
Through balanced judicial review, the Supreme Court ensures that asymmetric mechanisms foster 'unity in diversity' without compromising national integrity, thereby cementing a resilient and collaborative federal structure.