Why many states in India enjoy special provisions

• India's governance structure is described as quasi-federal, blending elements of both federalism and unitarism.
• In the Indian context, while states do have autonomy, the Constitution tilts towards the Centre on certain areas.

Seventh Schedule of the Constitution

• The distribution of legislative powers between the Centre and states is outlined in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
• It contains the Union, State, and Concurrent lists, specifying subjects on which each level of government can legislate.
• In areas falling under the Concurrent list, Union law prevails in case of a conflict between laws made by the Parliament and state legislatures.

Differentiated Equality and Special Status

• However, even in this quasi-federal structure that leans more towards the Centre, not all states are equal.
• India's diverse landscape necessitates differentiated equality for states, considering factors like fiscal, political and administrative variations.
• The Constitution provides for special provisions, often referred to as asymmetric federalism, granting varying degrees of autonomy to certain states.
• Critics argue that such special statuses can foster regionalism and separatism.

Examples of Asymmetric Federalism

• Article 370 (Jammu and Kashmir): Abrogated in 2019, it formalised Jammu and Kashmir's unique relationship with India, providing a level of internal sovereignty.
• Article 371 A to 371 I: The Constitution offers special provisions for at least nine states with negotiated autonomies, protecting religious practices and land rights.
• Article 239AA: Delhi, though not a state, has unique arrangements under Article 239AA, allowing legislative powers on state and concurrent list subjects.

Supreme Court's Clarification on Article 370

• The Supreme Court, in a recent ruling, clarified that Article 370 was a feature of asymmetric federalism, not synonymous with internal sovereignty.
• This decision rejected arguments that Jammu and Kashmir had an element of internal sovereignty that couldn't be unilaterally revoked.

Conclusion

• Asymmetric federalism in India reflects the complexity of managing diversity within a unified constitutional framework.
• Special provisions, while addressing specific needs and historical contexts, continue to be subject to legal and political debates.