Why is India Called a 'Union of States'?

While India possesses all the fundamental features of a federation, the term "Union of States" in Article 1(1) signifies particular nuances:

• 1. No Agreement Among States: Unlike federations like the USA, where states came together through an agreement, the Indian 'Union' was not formed as a result of an agreement among the states. The states have no right to secede from the Union. This point was emphatically articulated by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.
• 2. Indestructible Union, Destructible States: The Indian Union is indestructible, meaning states cannot secede. However, the Parliament has the power to form new states, alter the areas, boundaries, or names of existing states (under Article 3), without the consent of the affected states. This stands in contrast to 'indestructible unions of indestructible states' found in classical federations.
• 3. Strong Centre in Emergency: In times of emergency (Articles 352, 356, 360), the Indian federal structure can transform into a unitary one, with the Centre gaining extensive powers over the states.
• 4. Single Constitution: Both the Centre and the states operate under a single Constitution (except for Jammu and Kashmir initially, but now fully integrated).
• 5. Single Citizenship: India follows single citizenship, unlike some federations that have dual citizenship.
• 6. Integrated Judiciary: India has a unified and integrated judicial system, with the Supreme Court at the apex, exercising jurisdiction over both central and state laws.
• 7. All-India Services: The existence of All-India Services (IAS, IPS, IFS) underscores the unitary bias, as members of these services are recruited by the Centre but serve in states.

India as a 'Quasi-Federal' or 'Sui Generis' System:

Legal scholars and judicial pronouncements have often described India's structure as 'quasi-federal' or sui generis (unique in its characteristics).

• • K. C. Wheare: Described India as "a quasi-federal state" and "a unitary state with subsidiary federal features rather than a federal state with subsidiary unitary features."
• • State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1962): The Supreme Court observed that the Indian Constitution is not truly federal in character.
• • S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): This landmark case significantly strengthened the federal character of the Indian Constitution, especially in relation to Article 356 (President's Rule). The Court held that federalism is a basic feature of the Constitution, reaffirming the judicial review over central interventions in state affairs. It emphasized that states are not mere appendages of the Union.
• • Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): While not directly on federalism, this case established the 'Basic Structure Doctrine', of which federalism is considered a part, implying that the federal character cannot be abrogated by parliamentary amendment.

Conclusion:

India's constitutional design is a masterclass in adapting federal principles to its unique historical, social, and political context. The term "Union of States" highlights its non-secessionist nature and the strong centralizing tendencies, particularly evident during emergencies. While retaining robust federal features like division of powers and an independent judiciary, the Indian model deviates from classical federations to ensure national unity, stability, and effective governance across its vast and diverse landscape. It is a flexible federalism, balancing the needs of autonomy with the imperative of unity.