Which of the following features is,are contrary to the norms of a federal polity? 1. Common All India Service 2. Single integrated judiciary Select the correct answer using the code given below : Code :

1. Essential Characteristics of a Federal Polity (basic)

At its core, Federalism is a system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and various constituent units (like states or provinces). Think of it as a legal contract or a treaty (the word comes from the Latin foedus, meaning 'treaty') where both the Centre and the States agree to coexist, each having their own specific area of operation. For a system to be truly called 'federal,' political scientists generally agree on a set of 'minimal' or essential features.

The first and most fundamental feature is the Dual Polity. This means there are two levels of government, each exercising authority directly over the citizens within their respective spheres. In India, this is manifested through the Union government at the Centre and the State governments at the periphery D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, Nature of the Federal System, p.58. This duality is supported by a Written Constitution, which serves as the supreme 'rulebook' that defines the powers of both levels to prevent any confusion or overlap M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Federal System, p.138.

To ensure this system works smoothly, three other pillars are necessary:

• Division of Powers: The Constitution clearly demarcates what the Centre can do and what the States can do. In the Indian context, this is famously done through the Seventh Schedule (Article 246), which contains the Union, State, and Concurrent Lists Majid Husain, Geography of India, Regional Development and Planning, p.56.
• Supremacy and Rigidity of the Constitution: The Constitution is the highest law of the land. It must be 'rigid,' meaning the central government cannot unilaterally change the division of powers without the consent of the states.
• Independent Judiciary: Since disputes are bound to happen between the Centre and States, there must be an 'umpire.' An independent judiciary ensures that the division of powers is respected and that neither level oversteps its constitutional bounds.

Feature	Federal System (Ideal)	Unitary System (Contrast)
Source of Power	Constitution divides power	Central govt. delegates power
Government Levels	Dual (National & Regional)	Single (National)
Constitution	Must be written & rigid	May be unwritten or flexible

Sources: Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), Nature of the Federal System, p.58; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Federal System, p.138; Geography of India, Majid Husain (9th ed.), Regional Development and Planning, p.56

2. Indian vs. Global Federalism: The Deviations (basic)

When we talk about Federalism, it’s helpful to think of it not as a rigid rulebook, but as a spectrum. On one end, you have the "classic" or pure federalism of the United States, where the federal government and state governments operate in strictly separate spheres. On the other end, you have Unitary systems (like the UK) where the central government holds all the cards. India, as a "Union of States," sits in a unique spot that scholars like K.C. Wheare famously called "Quasi-federal" because it intentionally deviates from the classic model to ensure national unity M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Chapter 4, p.29.

Two of the most significant deviations in the Indian system are the Integrated Judiciary and the All India Services (AIS). In a traditional federal polity like the US, there is a "dual system"—federal courts handle federal laws, and state courts handle state laws. However, India employs a single, integrated hierarchy of courts with the Supreme Court at the apex. This means the same set of courts administers both Union and State laws, ensuring legal uniformity across the country Indian Constitution at Work, Chapter 6, p.130. Similarly, while states have their own civil services, the All India Services (IAS, IPS) are recruited and trained by the Centre but serve in the states. This gives the Central government a unique administrative bridge into state affairs, a feature often seen as a unitary bias.

Feature	Classic Federalism (e.g., USA)	Indian Federalism
Judiciary	Dual Judiciary (Separate Federal and State courts).	Integrated Judiciary (Single hierarchy for all laws).
Civil Services	Separate services for Federal and State governments.	Common All India Services (IAS/IPS) serving both.
Equality of Units	Symmetric (All states usually have equal powers).	Asymmetric (Special provisions for some states, e.g., Art. 371).

Furthermore, the Indian Constitution embraces Asymmetric Federalism. While the US model treats all sub-units with strict constitutional symmetry, India recognizes that different regions have different needs. Through provisions like Article 371, certain states (like Nagaland or Maharashtra) are granted special prerogatives to protect their unique cultures or administrative requirements Indian Constitution at Work, Chapter 10, p.232. This flexibility is why experts like Ivor Jennings described India as a "federation with a strong centralising tendency" D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, Nature of the Federal System, p.66.

Sources: M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Chapter 4: Salient Features of the Constitution, p.29; Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.), Chapter 6: JUDICIARY, p.130; Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.), Chapter 10: THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE CONSTITUTION, p.232; D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India (26th ed.), Nature of the Federal System, p.66

3. Emergency Provisions: The Ultimate Centralization (intermediate)

In a standard federal system, the division of powers between the Center and the States is usually sacrosanct. However, the Indian Constitution introduces a remarkable mechanism that allows the state to pivot from a federal structure to a unitary one during times of crisis. This is often described as the ultimate centralization because it doesn't require a formal constitutional amendment to change the way the country is governed. Under normal circumstances, the States enjoy autonomy in their respective spheres, but once an emergency is declared, the federal balance tilts entirely in favor of the Union.

This unique flexibility is enshrined in three distinct types of emergencies, each serving as a tool for centralization:

• National Emergency (Article 352): Triggered by war, external aggression, or armed rebellion.
• President's Rule (Article 356 & 365): Imposed due to the failure of constitutional machinery in a state or failure to follow Central directions.
• Financial Emergency (Article 360): Invoked if the financial stability or credit of India is threatened.

As noted in Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Salient Features of the Constitution, p.33, this transformation of the political system is a unique feature of the Indian Constitution, ensuring that the "Union" remains indestructible even if the "Federation" is temporarily suspended.

Feature	During Normal Times	During Emergency (Centralization)
Authority	Dual Polity (Center & States are co-equal in their spheres).	The Central Government becomes all-powerful.
Legislation	State Legislatures have exclusive power over State List.	Parliament can legislate on any subject in the State List.
Executive	States operate under their own Council of Ministers.	The President can dismiss the state government and rule through the Governor Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Emergency Provisions, p.179.

This "unitary bias" is a deliberate design by the framers to protect the sovereignty and integrity of the nation NCERT Class XI, Indian Constitution at Work, The Philosophy of the Constitution, p.232. While critics argue this undermines federalism, proponents see it as a necessary safety valve. By allowing the President to take over state functions and declare that the powers of the state legislature be exercised by Parliament, the Constitution ensures that during a crisis, India acts as a single, cohesive unit rather than a collection of disparate states.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Salient Features of the Constitution, p.33; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Emergency Provisions, p.179; Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.), THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE CONSTITUTION, p.232

4. Financial Federalism and Constitutional Bodies (intermediate)

In any federal system, there is a natural tension between the Union and the States regarding money. This is known as fiscal imbalance. In India, the Constitution designers realized that the Centre has more power to raise revenue (through taxes like Income Tax and Customs), while the States have more responsibility for public welfare (like Health, Education, and Agriculture). To ensure that States aren't constantly at the mercy of the Union's whims, the Constitution created a neutral, quasi-judicial arbiter: the Finance Commission (FC).

Under Article 280, the President of India constitutes a Finance Commission every five years (or earlier if needed). Its primary job is to recommend how the "net proceeds" of taxes should be shared. This involves two types of distribution: Vertical Devolution (deciding how much of the total divisible pool of central taxes goes to the States as a whole—currently 41% per the 15th FC) and Horizontal Devolution (the formula to decide how that 41% is split among the 28 States based on criteria like population, area, and forest cover) Indian Economy, Vivek Singh, Government Budgeting, p.182. These transfers are unique because they are untied; the States have full autonomy to decide how to spend this money, which is a core pillar of federal autonomy.

Beyond tax sharing, the Finance Commission also lays down the principles for Grants-in-aid to the States out of the Consolidated Fund of India under Article 275 Basu, D. D., Introduction to the Constitution of India, Distribution of Financial Powers, p.387. Furthermore, following the 73rd and 74th Amendments, the Commission must also suggest measures to augment the Consolidated Fund of a State to help supplement the resources of local bodies like Panchayats and Municipalities, based on the findings of the respective State Finance Commissions Basu, D. D., Introduction to the Constitution of India, Municipalities and Planning Committees, p.326.

Feature	Vertical Devolution	Horizontal Devolution
Definition	Sharing of resources between Union and States.	Allocation of the shared pool among different States.
Current Status	41% of the divisible pool (15th FC).	Based on a formula (Population, Income Distance, etc.).

Sources: Indian Economy, Vivek Singh, Government Budgeting, p.182; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, Distribution of Financial Powers, p.387; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, Municipalities and Planning Committees, p.326; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Finance Commission, p.431

5. Administrative Unitary Features: Governor and Citizenship (intermediate)

In a textbook federal system, the Center and the States are often treated as independent equals within their respective spheres. However, the Indian Constitution introduces several unitary features that tip the balance of power toward the Union to ensure national stability and integrity. Two of the most significant features in this regard are the Office of the Governor and Single Citizenship.

The Governor serves as the constitutional head of a state, but unlike the President (who is elected), the Governor is appointed by the President (Article 155) and holds office during the pleasure of the President Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Chapter: Governor, p.323. This creates a unique dynamic where the Governor acts as an agent of the Central government. Through the Governor, the Center can monitor state administration and even intervene in the legislative process—for instance, when a Governor reserves a state bill for the President’s consideration. While the Governor must usually act on the advice of the State Council of Ministers, they exercise individual judgment in specific situations, such as appointing a Chief Minister when no party has a clear majority Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter: Chief Minister, p.325.

Similarly, the concept of Single Citizenship is a powerful unitary tool. In classic federations like the USA or Australia, citizens owe allegiance to both the national government and their specific state, enjoying dual sets of rights Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter: Citizenship, p.61. India, following the Canadian model, rejected this to prevent regionalism. Regardless of the state you are born in or reside in, you are only a citizen of India. This ensures that all citizens enjoy the same rights and privileges throughout the territory of India, fostering a sense of national fraternity over narrow state identities Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter: Federal System, p.140.

Feature	Indian Model (Unitary Bias)	Classic Federal Model (e.g., USA)
Citizenship	Single (National only)	Dual (National + State)
State Head	Appointed by the Centre (Governor)	Elected/Independent of Centre

Sources: Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Governor, p.323; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chief Minister, p.325; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Citizenship, p.61; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Federal System, p.140

6. The All India Services (AIS) and State Autonomy (exam-level)

In a traditional federal system, such as that of the United States, there is a clear 'dual' administrative structure: the federal government has its own officers, and state governments have theirs. However, India adopts a unique model. While we have Central Services and State Services, we also have All-India Services (AIS)—currently the IAS, IPS, and IFoS. These officers are recruited and trained by the Central government but are assigned to various state 'cadres' where they serve under the state government's immediate supervision. As noted in D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India (26th ed.), p. 64, these services are common to both the Union and the States, acting as a bridge that ensures a minimum uniform standard of administration across the country.

From the perspective of State Autonomy, this is often viewed as a unitary feature because the ultimate disciplinary authority over these officers rests with the Central government, not the State they serve. This can sometimes lead to friction, as states may feel their executive control is diluted. To balance this, Article 312 provides a constitutional safeguard: the Parliament can only create a new All-India Service if the Rajya Sabha (the House of States) passes a resolution supported by two-thirds of the members present and voting, declaring it 'necessary or expedient in the national interest' Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity (7th ed.), Chapter: Public Services, p. 549. This ensures that the states, through their representatives in the Rajya Sabha, have a say in any further centralization of administrative power.

A similar 'integrated' logic applies to the Indian Judiciary. Unlike the US, where there is a bifurcation between Federal and State courts, India features a single integrated judicial system. The Supreme Court stands at the apex, followed by High Courts and subordinate courts, all of which administer both Union and State laws NCERT Class XI, Indian Constitution at Work, Chapter 6: Judiciary, p. 130. While this ensures legal consistency, it serves as another deviation from strict federal principles, emphasizing the 'Unitary Bias' inherent in the Indian constitutional design.

Feature	Classic Federalism (e.g., USA)	Indian Federalism
Administrative Services	Separate Federal and State services.	All-India Services common to both (IAS/IPS).
Judiciary	Dual system (Federal and State courts).	Single integrated hierarchy.

Sources: Introduction to the Constitution of India, Nature of the Federal System, p.64; Indian Polity, Public Services, p.549; Indian Constitution at Work (NCERT Class XI), Judiciary, p.130

7. Integrated Judiciary vs. Dual Court System (exam-level)

To understand the judicial structure of a federation, we must first look at the 'ideal' federal model, like that of the United States. In a Dual Court System, there is a clear division: federal courts handle federal laws, and state courts handle state laws. They operate in parallel silos. However, the Indian Constitution-makers chose a different path—an Integrated Judiciary. This means that although India is a federation with a division of powers, it does not have a division of judicial authority. Instead, we have a single, unified hierarchy of courts for the entire country Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Salient Features of the Constitution, p.30.

The structure of the Indian judiciary is pyramidal. At the very apex sits the Supreme Court, followed by High Courts at the state level, and Subordinate Courts (District and Lower courts) at the base. What makes this 'integrated' is that the lower courts function under the direct superintendence and control of the higher courts NCERT Class XI, Indian Constitution at Work, Chapter 6: Judiciary, p.130. This hierarchy ensures that the law of the land is applied uniformly from Kanyakumari to Kashmir.

The most significant functional difference lies in the enforcement of laws. In India, the same set of courts—from the District Court up to the Supreme Court—adjudicates cases arising under both Central laws and State laws. This is a major departure from the U.S. model, where federal judiciary and state judiciary are separate entities Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Federal System, p.140. Because this single system binds the Union and the States together under one legal umbrella, it is classified as a unitary feature of the Indian Constitution, designed to prevent legal fragmentation and ensure national integrity.

Feature	Dual Court System (e.g., USA)	Integrated Judiciary (India)
Hierarchy	Two separate sets of courts (Federal & State).	Single hierarchy (Supreme Court at the apex).
Law Enforcement	Federal courts for federal laws; State courts for state laws.	One system enforces both Central and State laws.
Supervision	State courts are often independent of the Federal Supreme Court in state matters.	Lower courts are strictly subordinate to the High Courts and Supreme Court.

Sources: Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Salient Features of the Constitution, p.30; NCERT Class XI, Indian Constitution at Work, Chapter 6: Judiciary, p.130; Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Federal System, p.140

8. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

Now that you have mastered the distinction between federal and unitary features, this question serves as the perfect litmus test for your understanding of India’s unique constitutional balance. In a classical federal polity, the building blocks are based on a strict division of power where states enjoy complete autonomy over their own administration and legal interpretation. This question asks you to identify the specific Indian features that break this mold by centralizing authority, often referred to as a "unitary bias." As discussed in M. Laxmikanth's Indian Polity, these features are deviations from the traditional federal model found in countries like the United States.

To arrive at the correct answer, evaluate each statement through the lens of centralization. First, Common All India Services (AIS) are recruited and trained by the Centre but serve in the states. This allows the Union government to maintain a degree of control over state administration, which is contrary to the federal norm of administrative independence. Second, a single integrated judiciary means that a single hierarchy of courts enforces both Union and State laws, with the Supreme Court at the apex. In a strict federation, there would be a dual system of courts. Because both of these features promote a unified, centralized structure rather than a divided one, (C) Both 1 and 2 is the correct answer. This alignment is further supported by D. D. Basu’s Introduction to the Constitution of India, which highlights that India has no federal distribution of judicial powers.

UPSC often uses specific traps to confuse candidates, particularly regarding the judiciary. A common mistake is conflating an independent judiciary (which is a federal feature) with an integrated judiciary (which is a unitary feature). Do not let the word "judiciary" lead you to assume federalism; it is the integration that creates the unitary bias. Similarly, options (A) and (B) are incorrect because they are incomplete; both the administrative and judicial structures mentioned here serve to integrate the states into a single national fabric, making both 1 and 2 contrary to the strict norms of a federal polity.