CJI Chandrachud Highlights Supreme Court’s Role in Strengthening Federalism, Ensuring State Rights
In a recent lecture at the Loksatta Lecture Series, Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud shed light on how the Supreme Court has developed a robust jurisprudential framework that strengthens federalism and protects state rights in India. CJI Chandrachud’s address, titled “Understanding Federalism and Its Potential,” underscored the Court’s role in shaping the Centre-state relationship and reinforcing state autonomy.
The CJI highlighted that over recent decades, the Supreme Court has crafted a nuanced legal framework on federalism, ensuring a balance between central authority and state powers. He emphasized that unlike the U.S. Constitution, which is relatively vague about power division, the Indian Constitution is highly specific in its distribution of authority between the Centre and states. “The Indian Supreme Court has developed its jurisprudence on federalism not through political considerations but through constitutional interpretation and precedent,” Chandrachud stated.
The landmark mineral area development case: Federalism in action
CJI Chandrachud discussed the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Mineral Area Development Authority v. M/S Steel Authority of India & Ors, which reaffirms the states’ power to levy taxes on mineral rights. Delivered by an 8:1 majority, the judgment acknowledged the diversity of states’ natural resources and the importance of their fiscal autonomy. “We were cognizant of the reality that different states are differently endowed with mineral resources,” Chandrachud remarked. This case illustrated how federalism impacts not only political autonomy but also the economic welfare of states, drawing on principles of “resource federalism” and “fiscal federalism” to uphold the states’ ability to govern resources within their boundaries.
The evolution of federalism: From centripetal to centrifugal
In his address, the CJI traced the evolution of federalism in India, particularly highlighting the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India. The pre-Bommai era, described by Chandrachud as the “centripetal era,” saw the Court leaning towards a centralizing tendency, granting more powers to the Centre. However, post-Bommai, the Court embraced a “centrifugal” approach, increasing the autonomy of states and strengthening their powers. In S.R. Bommai, the Supreme Court ruled that states were not mere extensions of the Centre and emphasized that the Centre could not diminish state powers arbitrarily. “The era after Bommai is one of enhanced state autonomy,” the CJI noted, “where the Court has consistently aimed to reinforce the independence and strength of state governance.”
Upholding federalism through article 200: A recent judicial perspective
CJI Chandrachud provided another example of the Court’s pro-federal stance through its interpretation of Article 200 of the Indian Constitution in The State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab and Anr. Article 200 gives governors three options when a bill is passed by a state legislature: to give assent, withhold assent, or reserve the bill for the President’s consideration. The Court addressed whether governors could indefinitely withhold assent to a bill, effectively vetoing legislation passed by the state government. CJI Chandrachud’s Bench ruled that such an indefinite withholding would undermine federal principles and representative governance.
The Court interpreted Article 200’s provisions to restrict a governor’s authority to withhold assent indefinitely. “If a governor could indefinitely withhold assent, it would amount to a veto over state legislation, eroding the core principles of federalism and democracy,” Chandrachud explained. Instead, the Court clarified that governors could only withhold assent for reconsideration, upholding a balance that respects both state legislative autonomy and federal oversight.
More Read
A broader vision for federalism: Towards democracy and constitutional ideals
Reflecting on the future of federalism, CJI Chandrachud proposed a broader framework, where the focus shifts from the traditional power-sharing arrangement to a system that actively promotes democratic and constitutional ideals. He argued that federalism should be measured by how well it fosters democracy and protects values such as equality, liberty, dignity, and fraternity. “Federalism in the coming years should aim at strengthening democracy and constitutional values,” Chandrachud remarked, “States and the Union are both creations of the Constitution, and they must work in synergy, respecting each other’s legislative boundaries.”
In his concluding remarks, CJI Chandrachud stressed the importance of cooperation and mutual respect between the Centre and states in addressing modern challenges, from economic reforms to social welfare. “Our ability to address contemporary issues will be the true test of federalism,” he said, emphasizing that both levels of government must remain committed to a shared constitutional vision.
Strengthening the federal structure
The CJI’s remarks underscore the evolving role of the Supreme Court in protecting the rights of states within India’s federal framework. Through landmark judgments like Mineral Area Development Authority and S.R. Bommai, the Supreme Court has established a solid legal foundation for federalism, supporting state autonomy while fostering unity and collaboration across India. As the CJI emphasized, the ultimate goal is a federalism that strengthens democracy, respects state autonomy, and upholds the constitutional values upon which the Indian Union was founded.
