Examine and contrast India’s administrative federalism system with that of other federal nations, such as Canada and Germany, taking into account the All-India Services and the function of the Union Public Service Commission.
The doctrine of Separation of Powers emphasizes the mutual exclusiveness of the three organs of government, viz., legislature, executive and judiciary. The main underlying idea is that there should not be concentration of all the functions/powers in one organ. Separation of power in US: The AmericanRead more
The doctrine of Separation of Powers emphasizes the mutual exclusiveness of the three organs of government, viz., legislature, executive and judiciary. The main underlying idea is that there should not be concentration of all the functions/powers in one organ.
Separation of power in US:
- The American Constitution follows strict separation of power. Its Art. I vests legislative power in the Congress; Art. II vests executive power in the President and Art. III vests judicial power in the Supreme Court.
- The Presidential form of government envisioned under this is based on the theory of separation between the executive and the legislature.
- On the basis of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers, the Supreme Court was not given the power to decide political questions. Also, overriding power of judicial review was not given to the Supreme Court until a landmark case of Marbury v. Madison.
- The US Constitution however incorporates some exceptions to the doctrine of separation with a view to introduce the system of checks and balances. For instance, a bill passed by the Congress may be vetoed by the President and, to this extent the President may be said to be exercising a legislative function.
- Therefore, in theory, the US insists on the absolute rigid separation of powers, but in practice, this principle is combined with the principle of checks and balances.
Separation of power in Britain:
- In Britain, there is a Parliamentary form of government, wherein the king is the nominal head, and the actual legislative functions are performed by the Parliament. Although the king is the chief executive, he is also an integral part of the legislature, and all his ministers are also members of specific houses of the Parliament.
- Britain has the concept of separation of powers, but it is not in a formal sense like in the United States. The three branches are not officially separated, but there is still a large overlap as in India.
- Therefore, the U.K. has a non-rigid separation of power which implies that the doctrine of Separation of Power is implemented in a broad sense as a result of which the functions of all three organs overlap with one another.
Separation of Power in India:
- The idea of Separation of power forms the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. However, a closer look at the provisions of the Indian Constitution, indicate that there is no strict separation of power in India and there are large exceptions:
- There is personnel and functional overlapping between the executive and the legislature.
- Even the power to amend the Constitution by Parliament is subject to the scrutiny of the Court. The Court can declare any amendment void if it changes the basic structure of the constitution.
- The President of India who is the supreme executive authority in India exercises law making power in the form of ordinance making power under Article-123.
- The executive branch also influences the operation of the judiciary by appointing Chief Justices and other judges.
Thus, India has adopted the doctrine of separation of powers not in an absolute rigid sense but with the system of checks and balances. Also the doctrine of separation power cannot be practically applied in the strict sense in any contemporary democracy.
See less
Administrative federalism in India involves the distribution of administrative powers and responsibilities between the Union and state governments. Key components of this system include the All-India Services and the role of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). Comparing this system with civiRead more
Administrative federalism in India involves the distribution of administrative powers and responsibilities between the Union and state governments. Key components of this system include the All-India Services and the role of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). Comparing this system with civil service systems in other federal countries like Canada and Germany highlights unique aspects and common challenges.
Administrative Federalism in India
All-India Services
Structure:
The All-India Services (AIS) include the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), Indian Police Service (IPS), and Indian Forest Service (IFS).
Officers of these services are recruited by the Union government but serve both at the Centre and in state governments.
Recruitment and Training:
Recruitment is conducted through competitive examinations administered by the UPSC.
Training for AIS officers is provided at central institutions like the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration (LBSNAA).
Cadre System:
Officers are allocated to state cadres, though they can be deputed to the central government. This system ensures a balance between national coherence and state-specific administration.
Roles and Responsibilities:
AIS officers hold key administrative positions in both central and state governments, facilitating coordination and implementation of policies.
Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
Constitutional Role:
The UPSC is an independent constitutional body responsible for conducting exams for the recruitment of AIS and other central services.
It ensures a merit-based selection process, upholding standards of integrity and competence.
Functions:
Conducts examinations for civil services.
Advises the government on personnel policies, promotions, and disciplinary matters.
Comparison with Other Federal Countries
Canada
Civil Service Structure:
Canada has a decentralized civil service system with separate federal and provincial public services.
Federal civil servants are recruited by the Public Service Commission of Canada.
Provincial Autonomy:
Provinces have their public service commissions and recruit their civil servants, who manage provincial affairs.
There is less integration between federal and provincial services compared to India’s AIS system.
Coordination Mechanisms:
Intergovernmental committees and councils facilitate coordination between federal and provincial governments.
The emphasis is on cooperative federalism through dialogue and agreements.
Germany
Civil Service Structure:
Germany has a highly decentralized system with distinct federal and state (Länder) civil services.
Each state has significant autonomy in recruiting and managing its civil servants.
Federal-Länder Relations:
Civil servants at the federal level handle national issues, while state civil servants manage regional affairs.
The Basic Law (Grundgesetz) ensures a clear delineation of responsibilities, with mechanisms for cooperation.
Integration and Training:
While there is some collaboration between federal and state services, the focus is on maintaining the distinctiveness of each level.
Training programs are often state-specific, though there are efforts to standardize best practices.
Comparative Analysis
Centralized vs. Decentralized Systems:
India’s system, with the AIS, offers a more integrated approach compared to the decentralized systems of Canada and Germany. This integration facilitates uniformity and coordination across states but can sometimes lead to tension over state autonomy.
Recruitment and Training:
India’s UPSC and centralized training programs contrast with the more decentralized recruitment and training mechanisms in Canada and Germany. This centralization helps maintain high standards but may not always address regional needs effectively.
Coordination and Cooperation:
While India relies on the AIS for coordination, Canada and Germany use intergovernmental bodies and agreements. These mechanisms reflect a preference for cooperative federalism without merging administrative structures.
Autonomy and Flexibility:
Canada and Germany’s systems allow for greater regional autonomy and flexibility, enabling provinces and states to tailor their administrative practices to local needs. India’s system, while promoting uniformity, can sometimes be seen as impinging on state autonomy.
See less