The Evolution of Indian Federalism: Navigating the Crisis of Center–State Relations
The Evolution of Indian Federalism: Navigating the Crisis of Center–State Relations
Indian federalism, often described as the backbone of the country’s constitutional architecture, is currently undergoing one of its most significant phases of transformation since independence. In late 2025 and early 2026, tensions between the Union government and several state governments intensified, bringing the federal structure into sharp public and constitutional focus. What was once largely an academic debate about the balance of power between the Center and the States has now become a pressing political and institutional concern. States have increasingly voiced apprehensions regarding what they perceive as growing central interference in areas constitutionally assigned to them.
The decision of the Tamil Nadu government to establish a high-level committee to examine the changing contours of federalism marked a watershed moment. This move reflected not merely a regional political disagreement but a broader structural concern about the evolving nature of India’s Union. It indicated that Indian federalism was transitioning from a phase of cooperative engagement toward a more contested and confrontational dynamic. This development has triggered a nationwide discussion on the need to reassess constitutional arrangements and redefine the principles governing Center–State relations in the world’s largest democracy.
The Kurian Joseph Committee: A Constitutional Review of Federal Balance
In response to these growing tensions, the Tamil Nadu government constituted a three-member committee headed by Justice Kurian Joseph, a former judge of the Supreme Court of India. Known for his strong commitment to constitutional values and judicial independence, Justice Joseph was entrusted with the responsibility of examining the structural and functional aspects of Indian federalism. The committee’s mandate included evaluating recent central laws, administrative actions, and fiscal policies that may have affected state autonomy and recommending measures to restore constitutional equilibrium.
The committee’s report, released in early 2026, highlighted what it termed as a phenomenon of “creeping centralism.” According to the report, the Union government has increasingly expanded its influence over subjects traditionally reserved for the states through legislative interventions, administrative mechanisms, and fiscal instruments. The report emphasized that federalism is not merely a political convenience but a fundamental feature of the Constitution, recognized by the Supreme Court as part of its Basic Structure. Any systematic erosion of state autonomy, therefore, risks undermining the constitutional identity of India itself.
The committee argued that treating states as subordinate administrative units rather than equal constitutional partners weakens democratic accountability and regional governance. It stressed that federalism ensures representation of India’s diverse linguistic, cultural, and economic realities and serves as a safeguard against excessive concentration of power.
The Role of Governors: Constitutional Bridge or Political Instrument
One of the most contentious issues in recent Center–State relations has been the evolving role of the Governor. The Constitution envisages the Governor as the nominal executive head of the state and a vital link between the Union and the State governments. However, in recent years, the Governor’s office has increasingly become a focal point of political disputes.
Several state governments, including those of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal, have raised concerns regarding delays or refusal of assent to state legislation under Article 200 of the Constitution. In some cases, Governors have withheld bills indefinitely or reserved them for consideration by the President, effectively stalling the legislative agenda of elected state governments. Additionally, controversies have arisen over the Governor’s involvement in university administration, public statements criticizing state policies, and alleged interference in executive decisions.
The Kurian Joseph Committee argued that such practices undermine democratic principles by allowing unelected officials to obstruct the will of elected legislatures. It recommended reforms to ensure greater neutrality and independence of Governors. These included providing Governors with fixed security of tenure, establishing a transparent appointment process involving consultation with the state government, and clearly defining the discretionary powers of the office to prevent misuse.
Fiscal Federalism: The Struggle for Financial Autonomy
Fiscal federalism constitutes one of the most critical dimensions of Center–State relations. The Constitution divides taxation powers between the Union and the States while providing for resource sharing through the Finance Commission. However, recent fiscal developments have raised concerns about the erosion of state financial autonomy.
A major issue highlighted by the committee is the increasing use of cesses and surcharges by the Union government. Unlike regular taxes, revenues collected through cesses and surcharges are not shared with the states under the Finance Commission’s devolution formula. As a result, even though the overall tax burden may increase, the share available to states decreases. This reduces the financial capacity of states to implement welfare programs and development initiatives.
Furthermore, the committee noted that Centrally Sponsored Schemes such as the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) and the National Health Mission often involve unilateral changes in funding patterns and operational guidelines. Since states are responsible for implementing these schemes, sudden changes create financial and administrative burdens. This trend weakens the principle of cooperative federalism, which requires consultation and consensus in matters affecting shared responsibilities.
Delimitation and the Emerging North–South Federal Debate
Another critical issue affecting Indian federalism is the upcoming delimitation exercise scheduled after 2026. Delimitation involves redrawing parliamentary constituencies based on population data, ensuring equal representation for citizens. However, this process has generated deep concerns, particularly among southern states.
Southern states such as Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh have successfully implemented population control measures and achieved lower population growth rates compared to several northern states. As delimitation is based primarily on population size, these southern states fear that their representation in Parliament may decline, while states with higher population growth may gain greater representation.
This situation creates a paradox where states that effectively implemented national development policies may lose political influence. The Kurian Joseph Committee emphasized that such an outcome could weaken the federal balance and discourage policy innovation. It recommended exploring alternative formulas that incorporate factors such as human development indicators, economic contributions, and governance performance, in addition to population, to ensure fair representation.
Administrative Federalism and the Control of All India Services
The All India Services, including the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and Indian Police Service (IPS), play a crucial role in maintaining administrative continuity and national integration. These services operate under a system of dual control, serving both the Union and State governments. However, recent changes in cadre management rules have sparked concerns among states.
The committee highlighted that provisions allowing the Union government to unilaterally transfer officers to central deputation without state consent undermine the principle of shared administrative control. Such measures weaken the authority of state governments over their own administrative machinery and create uncertainty among civil servants. Officers may face conflicting pressures from state and central authorities, affecting governance efficiency.
The report argued that maintaining a balance in administrative control is essential for effective federal functioning. It recommended restoring the principle of consultation and mutual agreement in officer transfers and ensuring that state governments retain meaningful control over their administrative personnel.
Historical Foundations and the Changing Nature of Federalism
India’s federal structure was designed in the context of extraordinary historical challenges. At the time of independence, the country faced the trauma of Partition, threats of secession, and the need for national integration. A strong central government was considered essential to maintain unity and stability. Consequently, the Constitution provided the Union with significant powers, including emergency provisions, financial control, and administrative authority.
However, the political and economic context of India has changed significantly since 1950. India is now a stable democracy with strong regional identities, diverse political representation, and decentralized governance structures. States play a crucial role in delivering essential services such as healthcare, education, agriculture, and infrastructure.
The Kurian Joseph Committee argued that the continued dominance of central authority, justified historically by national security concerns, must now be reassessed in light of contemporary democratic realities. Modern governance requires collaboration, consultation, and respect for state autonomy rather than centralized command and control.
Proposed Reforms: Toward Cooperative and Balanced Federalism
To address the challenges facing Indian federalism, the committee proposed a series of institutional and constitutional reforms. One key recommendation was strengthening the Inter-State Council, established under Article 263 of the Constitution, by making it a permanent and effective forum for dialogue and dispute resolution. This would allow the Center and States to resolve disagreements through consultation rather than confrontation.
The committee also recommended increasing the share of states in the divisible tax pool to reflect their expanding responsibilities under welfare programs and the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. Financial empowerment of states is essential for ensuring effective governance and development.
Another important recommendation involved reforming Article 356, which allows the imposition of President’s Rule in states. The committee emphasized the need for strict guidelines to prevent misuse of this provision for political purposes. Additionally, it suggested reforms in the appointment and functioning of Governors to ensure neutrality and constitutional integrity.
Conclusion: Federalism as the Foundation of India’s Democratic Future
The evolving debate over Indian federalism represents a defining moment in the country’s constitutional journey. The issues highlighted by the Kurian Joseph Committee reflect deeper structural challenges that require careful and balanced resolution. Federalism is not merely a legal arrangement but a vital mechanism for managing diversity, promoting democratic participation, and ensuring effective governance.
A strong and unified India does not require a dominant Center but a harmonious partnership between the Union and the States. Empowering states, ensuring fiscal fairness, maintaining administrative balance, and promoting institutional dialogue are essential for strengthening national unity.
As India approaches the next phase of its constitutional evolution, the principles of cooperative federalism must guide policymaking and governance. The future of India’s democracy depends not on central dominance but on mutual respect, shared responsibility, and constitutional balance between the Union and its states.