Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Indian Constitution, while federal in structure, exhibits significant centralizing tendencies, a legacy of its historical context and the imperative to maintain national unity and integrity in a diverse nation. This is reflected in various constitutional provisions like the residuary powers vested with the Centre (Article 248), and emergency provisions (Part XVIII). Recent legislative actions, such as the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, the Disaster Management Act, 2005, and the now-repealed Farm Acts, further illustrate this trend, raising questions about the balance of power between the Union and the States. These acts, enacted under the guise of national interest, often grant substantial authority to the central government, sometimes at the expense of state autonomy.
Centralizing Tendencies in the Indian Constitution
The Indian Constitution, despite adopting a federal structure, leans towards centralisation due to several factors. Strong Centre is necessitated by the need for national integration, economic planning, and maintaining law and order. This is evident in subjects like Defence, Foreign Affairs, Currency, and Communication being under the Union List (List I, Seventh Schedule). The Constitution also provides for central intervention in state affairs under Article 356 (President’s Rule) and Article 355 (duty of the Union to protect States).
Analysis of Specific Acts
1. The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897
This Act, revived during the COVID-19 pandemic, grants broad powers to the central government to take measures to prevent the spread of epidemic diseases. While public health is a state subject (Entry 6 of List II), the Act allows the Centre to override state authority in certain circumstances. For instance, the central government issued nationwide lockdown orders, directing states to implement them, demonstrating a clear centralizing influence. The Act’s vague language and broad powers raised concerns about potential misuse and infringement on fundamental rights.
2. The Disaster Management Act, 2005
This Act establishes a national framework for disaster management, with the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) at the apex, headed by the Prime Minister. While disaster management is a shared responsibility, the NDMA has significant powers to formulate policies, guidelines, and plans, and to direct state governments in disaster response. The Act prioritizes a national approach, potentially diminishing state-level autonomy in managing disasters specific to their regions. The centralisation was particularly visible during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the Centre coordinating the national response and procuring vaccines.
3. The Farm Acts (Repealed)
The three Farm Acts of 2020 – the Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, and the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act – were arguably the most contentious examples of centralizing tendencies. These Acts aimed to liberalize agricultural markets, but were criticized for being enacted without adequate consultation with states and for undermining state-level regulations related to agriculture, which is a state subject (Entry 14 of List II). The Acts allowed private players to directly trade with farmers, bypassing state-regulated Agricultural Produce Market Committees (APMCs), effectively diminishing state control over agricultural trade. The protests and eventual repeal highlight the tension between central policy and state autonomy.
Constitutional Validity and Concerns
The centralizing aspects of these Acts often raise questions about their constitutional validity, particularly concerning the division of powers between the Centre and the States. While the Centre can invoke national interest or public health as justification for its actions, excessive centralisation can erode the federal spirit of the Constitution. This can lead to resentment among states, hinder effective governance, and potentially undermine the principles of cooperative federalism enshrined in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has, in several cases, emphasized the importance of maintaining the federal balance and cautioned against excessive central intervention.
| Act | Key Centralizing Feature | State Subject Affected |
|---|---|---|
| Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 | Central government’s power to issue nationwide directives during epidemics | Public Health |
| Disaster Management Act, 2005 | NDMA’s authority to formulate national disaster management policies and direct state governments | Disaster Management |
| Farm Acts (Repealed) | Allowing direct trade with farmers bypassing state APMCs | Agriculture & Markets |
Conclusion
The Indian Constitution’s centralizing tendencies, while historically justified for national integration, are increasingly being tested in the context of contemporary governance. The Epidemic Diseases Act, the Disaster Management Act, and the Farm Acts exemplify how the Centre can leverage legislative tools to exert control over areas traditionally within state jurisdiction. While a strong Centre is necessary for certain functions, a delicate balance must be maintained to preserve the federal structure and ensure cooperative federalism. A more consultative and collaborative approach, respecting state autonomy, is crucial for effective governance and national development.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.