Open Access Research Article
Judiciary Vis-À-Vis Federalism: A Comparative Analysis Of The Us And Indian Approach
Published Paper
Article Details
Judiciary
Vis-À-Vis Federalism: A Comparative Analysis Of The Us And Indian Approach
Authored By - Abhinav Viswanath
ABSTRACT
Federalism as a concept became prominent through the
Declaration of Independence in the USA. The founding fathers adopted a federal
approach for the constitutional governance when thirteen states declared
independence from the colonial rule to form one united nation. The idea of
federalism grew further through the genesis of the US Constitution, and is one
of the most important features of the American constitutional governance.
Federalism is an essential feature of the basic structure of Constitution of
India as well. It plays a pivotal role in the Constitutional governance of the
nation. The concept provides for a clear division and distribution of powers to
ensure the smooth functioning of the State. A critical analysis of the meaning
of federalism is done in the paper to interpret the nature of federalism, its
impact on the nation, democracy and constitutional governance in the USA and
India. The paper provides for an introduction to the concept of federalism its
meaning in its traditional sense and the new era of federalism. The paper
further explores the judicial approach of federalism in the USA and the
interpretation of the same in accordance with the US Constitution. The
centralising tendencies of the Constitution of India and the interpretation of
the meaning of federalism through the lens of the judicial approaches, as well
as the intention of the framers of the Constitution has been analysed as well.
The paper draws its analysis by elucidating the various aspects of Centre-
State relations and the effect of the same in the constitutional governance of
India. The paper provides for the evolution of federalism as an essential
feature to the basic structure of the Constitution of India by analysing the
various judicial precedents set in order to safeguard the principle. The paper
concludes by providing the author’s take on the effect of the judicial approach
in India, keeping in mind the principles of federalism, democracy and equality;
the latter two of which, are the corner stones of an ideal nation.
INTRODUCTION
The
concept of Federalism comprises of a compounded governmental mechanism for the
efficient governance of a nation. The union of several individual, autonomous,
unique, separate administrative units or states to form a single political
entity can be termed as the simple meaning to that of federalism.[1]
It is an attempt to distribute and divide sociological, economic, and political
powers of governance by trying to balance the nature of concentration of power
at the union and the nature of dispersing the power to the various units.
Federalism tries to reunite the powers with municipality, centralisation with
decentralisation and nationalism with localism.[2]
A
federal system is one that has powers with the governments both concentrated as
well as divided. There is a tendency to centralise certain powers and
functions, while there is also a tendency to decentralise certain powers and
functions. A federal form of government possesses a dual government or polity
by comprising one union government at the centre and various regional or state
governments. While the former type of government has jurisdiction over the
entire political union or nation, the latter possess power to govern over only
its own territory. In general, a citizen of a federal nation is possessing dual
citizenship, one for the entire nation, and one for the region of domicile or
birth.
It
is evident that in a federal nation, that any invasion by one administrative
unit over another unit is a breach of the Constitution of that nation; and that
such an invasion is justiciable issue to be determined by the courts.[3]
It is however, crucial to note that the several units or regional governments
are not mutually exclusive to different compartments, and may come in contact
from time to time depending on the circumstance involved. Unlike the unitary
form of government, where it is evident that the union or central government is
the supreme government, the constitution is supreme in a federal form of
government. Furthermore, unlike the unitary form of government, where the local
units have no higher status than mere administrative agencies for the central
government; the state or the regional government enjoys a varying degree of
autonomy from constitution to constitution.
Thus,
the units under a federation act under the ambit of the constitution of the
nation wherein, the powers of governance and territory of sovereignty can only
be changed only with an amendment to the constitution through a process
presided by a constituent body. The same unlike a unitary form of government,
cannot ordinarily be amended solely by the central or federal government. This
ensures that each regional or state government retains its core identity.
The
Government of USA evolved from dual federalism to associative federalism. The
Constituent States and the National Government are agents and trustees of the
people holding different powers.[4]
It is crucial to note that while there exists dual governments in the federal
as well as state level, both the governments were constituted in order to act
and exercise their powers in the general interest of the citizens involved
therein, and if in case the rights of the citizens are either violated or
encroached upon by any one government, the citizens can then take recourse from
the other level of government.[5]
Due
to the fact that the States of the USA were existing even prior to the
amalgamation of the states to form one united nation, there is no specific
provision in the Constitution of the USA that explains the concept of
federalism. However, the functions and responsibilities of the state government
and its staff is elucidated in relation to the federal government. The enumerated
powers of the federal governments are those expressed powers it possesses,
which are enunciated in the Constitution that includes the right to levy taxes,
regulate interstate and foreign commerce, and to declare war among many others.[6]
Furthermore, the Necessary and Proper Clause provides implied power to the
federal government to pass any law for the execution of the enumerated powers.[7]
The delegatory powers of the federal government has significantly been expanded
by the Supreme Court that the States are legally bound to the final dictates of
the federal government.[8]
The
US Constitution enumerates several values of Federalism which are served by a
system that distributes governmental authority such as efficiency, promoting
individual choice, encouraging experimentation, promoting democracy, preventing
tyranny and doctrinal implications.[9]
The
Constitution of India provides for a federal form of government by establishing
a dual polity or dual government system comprising of one central government
and several regional or state governments. Upon partition, the nation united to
form a sovereign democratic republic on the 26th of November, 1949.[10]
Therefore, it ought to be noted that unlike the United States of America,
wherein several states formed a confederation to form a united nation, the
nation of India was already one entity prior to the partition before it
disintegrated to form one union once more.[11]
The
Constitution of India provides for a strong central government, with several
centralising tendencies and therefore, is a flexible federal form of government
seeking to advance the concept of co-operative federalism to improve the
Centre-State relations in the nation for good constitutional governance. The
Constitution clearly provides that India is a union of states.[12]
This can be seen to suggest a centralising tendency as the article clearly
provides for a union of states and not a federation of states as rightly
pointed by Dr. BR Ambedkar during the Constituent Assembly Debates.[13]
The centralising tendency can be observed under various provisions of the
Constitution such as under the legislative[14],
administrative[15],
financial[16]
and emergency[17]
relations between the central government and the various state governments.
This centralising tendency to curb the disadvantages of a rigid federation was
adopted through the Constitution of Canada which follows a similar pattern of a
strong central government at the core. The flexible federal system provides for
efficient functioning of the dual governments to best protect the interests of
the citizens of the nation.
There
is a clear demarcation, distinction, division and distribution of legislative
powers in the Indian Constitution wherein, there exists a union list[18],
which deals with those matters that only the central government is empowered to
make laws; the state list[19],
wherein it contains those matters that can only be dealt with by the state
governments; and the concurrent list, wherein it contains those matters where
both the central government as well as the state governments are empowered to
enact laws on the matters mentioned.[20]
However, if there is any inconsistency between those laws enacted by the
central government and laws enacted by the state government, then those laws
enacted by the former type of government shall prevail.[21]
This further crystalises and enhances the concept of centralising tendency
wherein the Constitution of India is that of unitary in nature.
JUDICIARY VIS-À-VIS FEDERALISM
It is clear that the idea of
federalism saw its genesis in the United States of America before it was
adopted by India. The Constitution of USA envisages a federal government of
both limited as well as enumerated powers. Each branch of government has to act
within the limits of federal power. Among the three main organs of the State,
it is the burden and duty of the judiciary to interpret and analyse the scope
of extent of federalism in the nation to ensure that neither type of government
encroaches or transgresses the constitutional boundaries to preserve the checks
and balances of a federal nation.
The US Constitution provides for the
Supreme Court at the apex followed by the constitution of lower courts as the
Congress deems fit.[22]
Despite not expressly providing the scope of judicial review within the express
mandate of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has expressed the bounded duty
of the court to observe the same.[23]
The US Constitution further provides for the powers of the Congress that
includes additional powers such as the necessary and proper clause.[24]
The Constitution further provides for a reasonable restriction of the powers of
the Congress[25], as
well as those powers not within the ambit of the States.[26]
JUDICIAL APPROACH OF FEDERALISM IN
THE USA
It is widely considered that there
are predominantly four areas of conflict between the States and the Federal
Government. They include the power of the Supreme Court to review and reverse
decisions of the courts of the States[27],
the supremacy of the contract clause of the Constitution[28],
the effect of the necessary and proper clause on the activities of the States[29],
and the scope of the application of the commerce clause.[30]
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee[31]
In the first historic ruling
involving a property dispute on a lease, the Supreme Court overturned a
decision made by a lower court in the present case. A decision made by the apex
court of the State of Virginia was appealed to the Supreme Court of the USA.
The Supreme Court was ruled to lack jurisdiction to consider the case when the
judgement was remanded to the apex court of Virginia because of the contentious
issue on the subject matter. In an appeal, the US Supreme Court declared that
it had jurisdiction over federal law issues and overturned the lower court's
ruling. This suggested that there ought to be uniformity of application of laws
among all courts, and that the objective of the Constitution is to serve the
citizens equally, which the Court reiterated in the case of Cohen v. Virginia.[32]
Trustees of Dartmouth College v.
Woodward[33]
In a situation where the government
granted an individual to set up a private college, but due to certain
scenarios, the legislature passed a law that ensured that the private college
now became a public institution. When the former trustees of the Board
approached the lower courts to ensure the institution was reverted back to a
private entity, the court denied the same. On appeal, Justice Marshall
overturned this decision and upheld the sacrosanctity of the original charter
of the college. This judgement thus ensured the protection of the citizens by
emphasizing on the government’s duty to be bound by the viability of contracts
entered into. Therefore, it is the duty of the courts as enriched by the
Constitution to solve disputes of contractual obligations and state laws. The
Constitution provides for the supremacy of the contract clause and the
protection of the same and thus, prevents the states to pass such laws that
make the fulfilment of contractual obligations impossible.
McCulloch v. Maryland[34]
The State of Maryland sought to levy
a hefty tax on a bank that was recently established by the federal government
in the state. There existed a law that held that the taxation was not to be
applied on the banks which were chartered in Maryland. The Court used the ambit
of the ‘Necessary and Proper Clause’ which gives power to the federal
government to enact and pass legislations for those matters not expressly
provided in the Constitution. Justice Marshall of the US Supreme Court held
that the Congress had the powers to establish such a national bank. This case
helped in solidifying the scope of powers of the Congress and divided,
demarcated the relationship between the federal and state governments. The case
further provided that the Congress had implied powers from the Constitution to
make laws to establish a functional federal system. The exact scope of the
power of the federal government was unclear prior to the decision. Furthermore,
state action ought not obstruct the legitimate exercise of federal power in
accordance with the due process. The doctrine of implied powers thus came to be
as result of the instant decision and that the state of Maryland had no
authority to tax the national bank. This judgement further established the
supremacy of federal laws when there is a conflict between federal and state
laws.
Gibbons v. Ogden[35]
Widely regarded as one of the pioneer
judgements that ensured in the protection of federalism in the USA, the federal
government provided license to Thomas Gibbons for a steamboat service on the
route to New Jersey and New York. However, the state of New York had given a
similar license to Ogden, and when the latter approached the court of New York
for an injunction against Gibbons, the court granted the same. On appeal to the
Supreme Court, the court found that the issue dealt directly with the test of
trade clause. In order to avoid further confusion between the meaning of the
term ‘Commerce’, the court included the ambit of navigation between states as
well, and thus the Congress had the right to grant such license and regulate
commerce that includes the steamboat services between states.
However, Justice Marshall overturned
his previous judgement of Gibbons in Wilson v.
Blackbird Creek Marsh Co.[36]
This approach tends to differ from his usual stance of expanding the scope of
central/ federal power in the interest of federalism. However, the judgement
did not significantly impact the nature of federalism in the USA as the state
action would be upheld only if there is nothing provided by the federal
government. The federal government would still reserve the right to regulate
interstate trade and commerce for the benefit of the nation as a whole.
NEW FEDERALISM/ REHNQUIST ERA
Those powers that are neither
delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it
to the States, are reserved to the States.[37]
Former Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court William Rehnquist was a new
federalist, and an advocate of the original idea of federalism. It was in his period
as a judge, did the court even dare to strike down a law laid down by the
federal government for violating the principles of interstate trade and the
tenth amendment. He further advocated for a devolution of powers on the states
at the cost of the central government.[38]
This was to ensure that the states regained some form of autonomy to preserve
the ideals of what federalism ought to be, that is, a demarcation, division,
distinction and distribution of powers between a dual polity of governments.
The Supreme Court held that certain
provisions of the federal law of Low-Level Radio Active Waste Policy Amendments
Act, 1985 as unconstitutional due to its infringement on the powers of the
States.[39]
This pattern of unconstitutionality of the powers of the States was further
reiterated when provisions of the Gun-Free School Zones Act, 1990 was deemed
unconstitutional.[40]
Thus, the current scheme of federalism in the USA attempts to preserve the
autonomy of the States and thus tries to ensure that the citizens are the
beneficiaries of the same.
JUDICIAL APPROACH OF FEDERALISM IN
INDIA: WATERED DOWN
The concept of federalism, even
though having been recognised as part of the basic structure of the Indian
Constitution, has not been followed in its true, traditional sense in the
nation. To reiterate, Art. 1 of the Constitution provides that India is a union
of states[41], and
not a federation of states. This suggests that the concept of federalism has
been watered down in the Indian context to suit a more flexible form of
government. There are times wherein the central government can solely govern
the entire nation and the state governments cease to function to a certain
degree.[42]
The Constitution further provides for a provision in the event of a failure of
constitutional machinery during the time of emergency situations in one or more
States.[43]
These provisions are mere but few examples to suggest that the drafters of the
Constitution did not intend to consider India as a purely federal state. The
United States of America is often credited to being the first federal state,
and it follows the more traditional version of federalism. The Constitution of
Canada provides for certain centralising tendencies from which the watered
down, non-traditional and modern version of federalism has been implemented.
The Supreme Court has time and again emphasised on this view that federalism in
India is not implemented in its truest and traditional sense.
BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION
While the Constitution of India
provides for a federal structure, through the interpretation of the various
centralising tendencies, it can be said that the character or nature of the
Indian Constitution is unitary in nature. However, this does not mean that the
entire idea of federalism is watered down to such a degree and extent that it
no longer matters to the Indian Constitution. The concept of the basic
structure of the Constitution is one that has evolved through time from various
cases that were dealt by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Through Shankari Prasad[44] to Sajjan Singh[45], followed by Golak Nath[46] to Kesavananda Bharati[47], followed by Indira Gandhi[48] and finally solidified in Minerva
Mills[49], it can be observed that there are
certain character traits ingrained in the Indian Constitution that ought not be
trifled with. These character traits can be considered as what makes the basic
crux, or structure of the Constitution of India. Any amendment made to the
Constitution; any law enacted by the parliament ought not violate this doctrine
of the basic structure of the Constitution.
The court first considered the
federal character of the Constitution as part of the basic structure in the
case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala.[50] The same was further reiterated by
the Supreme Court wherein it was observed that Federalism is a basic feature of
the Constitution by Hon’ble Justices SAWANT, J., KULDIP SINGH, J., and
RAMASWAMI, J.[51] The Supreme Court further reiterated that the Constitution is federal in
form and is marked by the traditional characteristics of a federal system, such
as the supremacy of the Constitution, division of power between the Union and
States and existence independent judiciary.[52]
The instant case is often
considered as the primary occurrence of the non-traditionalist
approach to federalism in the country wherein the issue at hand dealt with the
exercise of sovereign powers by the State Governments. Another issue that was
dealt with focused on the legislative competence of the Parliament to enact a
law for compulsory acquisition by the Union of land and other properties vested
in or owned by the state and the sovereign authority of states as distinct
entities.
It was observed that the
Constitution did not emphasise on the traditional essence of federalism. It was
further observed that the powers of the government were decentralized primarily
to lessen the burden of governing a large territory such as India. The Court
drew a distinction between the Indian Constitution and that of the United
States of America. While the latter provides for a separate constitution to
each of its respective States, the former does not. There exists only a single
Constitution and therefore, a traditional version or doctrine of federalism
ought not be considered.
It was observed that the supremacy of the Constitution ought to be
maintained in its sanctity as the single living, dynamic document is applicable
for the governance of the entire nation including the states. The power to
amend the Constitution solely lies with the Central Government, and even though
procedure mandates that the State Governments play a crucial role in the
amendment process, they neither possess the power nor the authority to amend
the Constitution to any extent or degree. The court further observed that the demarcation, distinction, division
and distribution of powers was provided in the Constitution[54] to ensure proper local
constitutional governance by the States and the national policies and foreign
affairs to be decided by the Central Government the distribution of powers is
to facilitate local governance by the states and national policies to be
decided by the Centre. The Court ultimately observed that the legislative and
executive power of the States are subject to the laws enacted by the Centre.
The Court concluded that unlike the
American federal system, India provides for a single citizenship[55], and thus while the
Constitution provides that the nation is federal in structure, it is unitary
and centralised in spirit and nature wherein the states occupy a secondary
position in relation to the centre and thus, the Centre had the power to
acquire properties belonging to the States as the latter do not possess
absolute sovereignty.
However, a dissenting opinion by
SUBBA RAO, J., paves way for considering the essence of federalism as intended
by the framers of the Constitution in the Hon’ble Justice’s opinion. He was of
the view that the sovereign powers are divided, demarcated, distributed between
the Centre and the States within their respective spheres. He suggested that
the Central Government had a wider scope in the field of legislation in
comparison to the State Governments as any state enacted law in conflict with
the Central law shall be considered as void and repealed.[56] However, the same does not mean
that the States lose the essence of sovereignty as the States also have a
working legislature, executive and an independent judiciary and the same ought
not to affect the principles of federalism. The minority view of the Hon’ble
Justice stands the test of the division of powers and the traditional version
of the meaning to federalism.
The central argument of the
majority judgement in this case is that, despite the fact that both the Union
and the States in India derive their authority from the same Constitution, the
States would not have any legal protections against the Union's pre-eminent
powers due to a general theory of the Union's paramountcy or superiority. He
came to the conclusion that the Union Parliament has an implicit right to
acquire or purchase property owned by the States when executing the legislative
functions granted to the Union, despite the division of powers between the
Union and the States as provided by the Constitution.[57]
The Central Government by
exercising the powers enlisted in the various entries under Schedule VII could
enact laws that violate the States' ownership rights to the property that has
been vested in them. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for the Central
Government to fulfil its obligations with regard to matters of national
importance if it is assumed that those entries in the union list exclude State
property from the scope of laws enacted by the centre.[58] No explicit prohibition on its
practise can be found in the Constitution, and the inference of such a
prohibition requires a level of autonomy in the States that exceeds the Union's
declared legislative authority. Such a premise is not the basis for the
Constitution's division of powers between the Union and the States, and the
idea that the Union is superior to the States in many ways undermines it.
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India[59]
In defiance of the Constitution's
explicit restrictions, the educated justices started talking about the general
principles of federalism. Even though it may be possible to discern a federal
structure behind the creation of distinct executive, legislative, and judicial
organs in the States, it was claimed that the provision exemplified in Article
356 makes it clear that the Union Government is permitted to impose its own
views regarding the management and granting of power in the States.[60]
The extent of federalism in India has
been significantly reduced by the demands of development, integration,
political and economic coordination, and social and spiritual upliftment. The
Court then went on to enumerate a few constitutional clauses that indicate the
Parliament's superiority over State legislatures to suggest the centralising
tendencies. The Court concluded by declaring that the Union Parliament had the
"prerogative" to issue directives if they were for the benefit of the
people of the State and aimed at achieving the goals stated in the Preamble. As
Hon’ble Chief Justice BEG, CJ., observed that in a sense, the Indian
Constitution is federal, However, the extent of federalism has been largely
watered down by the needs of progress and development of a country which has to
be nationally integrated.
Similar views of watering down the
traditional version of federalism have been observed by the Supreme Court in
various other cases and circumstances. KRISHNA IYER, J., watered down the
concept of federalism by describing it as an Indo-Anglian version of the
West-Minister model with quasi-federal adaptations.[61]
PN BHAGWATI, J., in then further described the Constitution as a quasi-federal
Constitutional system.[62]
The Supreme Court further expressed a non-traditionalistic, yet pragmatic
opinion while explaining the federal concept in the context of the unified
legal system in India by stating that the nation does not follow the concept of
federalism in the traditional sense as it is not a true essence of a union of autonomous
states which have come together to form a federation by ceding undoubtedly
federal features.[63]
CONCLUSION
Unlike
the Constitution of the USA which supports the pure theory of federalism, the
Constitution of India puts forth a more centralised idea towards the same. Despite
being considered as an essential feature to the basic structure of the
Constitution[64],
the true essence of federalism has been diluted to varying degrees over the
period of time. It is crucial to note that even though the intention of the
drafters of the Constitution was clear as day to suggest and highlight the
centralising tendencies of the Constitution, and the fact that India is a union
of States and not a federation of states[65],
the current non-traditionalist stance of federalism has the probability of
having a severe, adverse and chilling effect on the principles of democracy and
equality in the future. On the one hand, it is widely known that the
fundamental rights are provided only to the people against the State action/
inaction[66],
it also ought to be noted that the State Governments have been created by the
Constitution to ensure a smooth functioning of governance. There is sufficient
demarcation, division, distinction and distribution of powers between the
central and the state governments. However, upon analysing the judgement of State
of West Bengal v. Union of India[67],
it is evident that the Central Government used its powers under the union list
to acquire property from the State of West Bengal. However, if the powers of
the Central Government are not clearly outlined, and if the same is left
unchecked, then there arises a significantly high chance or probability that
the central government uses this absolute discretion to acquire any property
that belongs to the territory of the State Governments in the name or guise of
public interest. This is in clear violation of Art. 14 which provides for the
right to equality[68]
and strikes against arbitrariness.[69]
Similarly
in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Union of India[70],
the judgement held that federalism has been watered down in order to improve
the development,
integration, political and economic coordination, and social and spiritual
upliftment. This however is in direct conflict with the purpose of
those constitutional provisions that primarily exist to ensure centralising
tendencies in extraordinary situations and circumstances. The case in itself
dealt with that of failure of constitutional machinery in the State of
Rajasthan, and thus the judgement ought not have provided the watered-down view
of federalism in a normal state of affairs. The actual conclusion of the case
is based on the idea that Art. 356 is a non-justiciable clause that deals with
a political issue. There are clauses that are not subject to judicial review
even in the American Constitution. It should be noted that the Judges in the
instant case have pointed out numerous times that a Proclamation under Art.
356(1) may now be challenged in court on the basis of mala fide. Therefore, the
fact that Art. 356 is not justiciable does not imply that the rules relating to
distribution between the Union and the States are not justiciable or that they
should be understood in a way that favours Union predominance.
The
US Supreme Court has interpreted the scope of federalism as per accordance of
the Constitution of US through various judgements and the same substantiates
the necessity of a federal government, its powers, as well as its limitations.
The judgements passed by the US Supreme Court also provide sufficient substance
to suggest that the powers and functions of the States ought not be trifled
with by the federal government in the guise of national interest and the
autonomy of the States ought to be preserved. The US Supreme Court has provided
with adequate rationale as to the reason for protecting federalism in the
nation.
Thus,
it is of grave significance the approach taken by the Supreme Court of India in
certain cases while watering down the meaning of federalism that they have not
provided guidelines, or tests to suggest the true nature of acts done so by the
Central Government. These guidelines, if laid down, can play a significant role
in ensuring that the Central Government does not misuse its discretionary powers
empowered by the Constitution in an absolute and arbitrary manner.
REFERENCES
1.
The Constitution of India
2. The
Constitution of the United States
STATUTES
CITED
1. Indian
Independence Act, 1947 c. 30 (10 & 11 Geo. 6)
BOOKS
CITED
1. GEOFFREY R. STONE, et. al., CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (5th ed. 2005).
2. AV Dicey, Law of the Constitution, (1952).
3. M.P.
JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (6th ed. 2010).
BOOKS REFERRED
1. Bryan
Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary, (14th ed., 2012).
2. H.M.
SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (4th ed., Universal Law Publishing,
2010).
3. M.P.
JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (8th ed. 2019).
4. V.N. Shukla,
Constitution of India, (Mahendra
Pal Singh, 13th ed. 2019).
CASE LAWS
1.
Cohen v. Virginia,19 U.S. 254 (1821).
2.
EP Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR
1974 SC 555.
3.
Ganga Ram Moolchandani v. State of Rajasthan,
AIR 2001 SC 2616.
4.
Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 9 (1824).
5.
Golak
Nath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643.
6.
Indira
Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299.
7.
ITC LTD v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee,
AIR 2002 SC 852.
8.
Kesavananda
Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461.
9.
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304
(1816).
10. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 (1819).
11. Minerva Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789.
12. New
York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992).
13. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1420.
14. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845.
15. Shamser v. State of Punjab,
AIR 1974 SC 2192.
16. Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, AIR 1952 SC 458.
17. SR Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918.
18. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC
1361.
19. State of West Bengal v. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC
1241.
20. Trustees
of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819).
21. Union
of India v. Sankalchand, AIR 1977 SC 2328.
22. United
States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
23. William
Marbury v. James Madison, 5
U.S. 137 (1803).
24. Wilson
v. Blackbird Creek Marsh Co
,27 U.S. 245 (1829).
REPORTS, JOURNALS AND ARTICLES
3.
Article
I: The Legislative Branch–The Enumerated Powers (Section 8), National
Constitutional Center, https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/article-1-the-legislative-branch-the-enumerated-powers-sections-8/.
4.
U.S. Const. art. I, § 8; Necessary and Proper Clause, Legal Information
Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/necessary_and_proper_clause#.
5. Constituent
Assembly of India Debates, 15th November 1948.
6.
Jeff
Powell, The Compleat Jefforsonian: Justice Rehnquist and Federalism, The Yale
Law Journal, Vol. 91, No. 7 (Jun., 1982), pp. 1317- 1370, https://www.jstor.org/stable/795957.
[6] Article I:
The Legislative Branch–The Enumerated Powers (Section 8), National
Constitutional Center, https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/article-1-the-legislative-branch-the-enumerated-powers-sections-8/.
[7] U.S. Const. art. I, § 8; Necessary
and Proper Clause, Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/necessary_and_proper_clause#.
[38] Jeff
Powell, The Compleat Jefforsonian: Justice Rehnquist and Federalism, The Yale
Law Journal, Vol. 91, No. 7 (Jun., 1982), pp. 1317- 1370, https://www.jstor.org/stable/795957.
[52] Ganga Ram Moolchandani
v. State of Rajasthan,
AIR 2001 SC 2616; ITC LTD v. Agricultural Produce
Market Committee, AIR 2002 SC 852.
Article Information
Judiciary Vis-À-Vis Federalism: A Comparative Analysis Of The Us And Indian Approach
Authors: Abhinav Viswanath
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/03/22
- Volume 2
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.