(a) In recent years, the concept of 'Cooperative Federalism' has played a pivotal role in constitutional governance of the nation but at the same time it comes across various challenges as well. Elaborate. (20 marks)

(b) "The Fundamental Rights are

Question

(a) In recent years, the concept of 'Cooperative Federalism' has played a pivotal role in constitutional governance of the nation but at the same time it comes across various challenges as well. Elaborate. (20 marks)

(b) "The Fundamental Rights are not an end in themselves but are the means to an end. The end is specified in the Directive Principles." Analyze the statement. (15 marks)

(c) "The ordinance making power of the President and the Governors is a unique feature of the Indian Constitution but it balances on a razor-sharp edge between pragmatic governance and potential over-reach." Critically examine with the help of decided case laws. (15 marks)

UPSC Answer Check · Accepted Answer

The Indian constitutional framework envisions a dynamic equilibrium balancing federal cohesion, socio-economic transformation, and institutional checks and balances.

Cooperative Federalism: Dynamics and Challenges

Cooperative federalism reflects an interdependent relationship between the Union and States to achieve national objectives. Institutional mechanisms facilitating this include the GST Council (Article 279A), NITI Aayog, the Inter-State Council (Article 263), and Statutory Zonal Councils. Recent collaborative imperatives are evident in joint pandemic management under the National Disaster Management Act, and centrally sponsored schemes like PM-KISAN and Ayushman Bharat.

However, operational challenges strain this architecture. Fiscal asymmetry persists due to the rising share of Union cesses and surcharges outside the divisible pool and disputes over GST compensation cess settlements. Policy centralization through national frameworks like NEET and the National Education Policy generates friction with state autonomy. Historically, political friction surfaced via the misuse of Article 356, though curbed after S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), which recognized federalism as part of the basic structure, refining the initial centralized reading in State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977). Furthermore, aggressive competitive federalism occasionally undermines horizontal interstate solidarity, demanding institutional revitalisation through regular Inter-State Council deliberations.

Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles: Means and Ends

The relationship between Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) embodies the synthesis of political democracy with socio-economic justice. Initially, State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951) and Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967) posited the subordination of DPSPs to Part III.

This hierarchy was dismantled through constitutional amendments and judicial interpretation. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of State of Kerala (1973) and Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) established that the harmony and balance between Parts III and IV constitute an essential feature of the basic structure, likening them to two wheels of a chariot. Article 31C shielded laws giving effect to the egalitarian mandates of Article 39(b) and (c) from challenges under Articles 14 and 19.

The doctrine of harmonious construction transformed DPSPs into the moral and substantive core of Part III. In Mohini Jain (1992) and Unni Krishnan (1993), the Supreme Court read the mandate of Article 45 into Article 21, which culminated in the constitutionalization of the Right to Education via Article 21A. Thus, Part III provides the protective means, whereas Part IV establishes the transformative end of an egalitarian welfare state.

Ordinance-Making Power: Pragmatism versus Executive Overreach

Articles 123 and 213 empower the President and Governors to promulgate ordinances during legislative recess to address unforeseen exigencies. While indispensable for administrative continuity, excessive reliance creates a democratic deficit by bypassing legislative deliberation.

The judiciary has incrementally circumscribed this extraordinary power. In R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970), the Supreme Court held that the President’s satisfaction regarding the necessity for immediate action is open to judicial review on grounds of mala fides. In D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1987), the Court struck down the practice of mechanically repromulgating ordinances without legislative tabling, characterizing it as a subversion of parliamentary democracy.

This jurisprudence culminated in the seven-judge bench ruling in Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2017), which held that the mandatory requirement to place ordinances before the legislature is a constitutional necessity. The Court ruled that repeated re-promulgation constitutes a fraud on the Constitution and that executive satisfaction is justiciable. Recent controversies surrounding ordinances on contentious subjects like the farm laws underscore this tension. The power under Articles 123 and 213 remains an emergency valve, permissible strictly as an exception rather than a parallel track of executive lawmaking.

(a) In recent years, the concept of 'Cooperative Federalism' has played a pivotal role in constitutional governance of the nation…

Model answer

What "Elaborate" is asking you to do

Structure that answers it

Where marks are lost

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

Key points expected

Evaluation rubric

Must cover

Loses marks

Earns more

Extra mark

Must cover

Loses marks

Earns more

Extra mark

Must cover

Loses marks

Earns more

Extra mark

Practice this exact question

More from Law 2024 Paper I