Clarify the intricate overlapping functions and shared responsibilities between the Union and States in India’s federal framework. Provide reasoning and specific examples from key policy areas like health or environmental governance to illustrate this dynamic.

India’s federalism features significant overlap between Union and State functions.

The Seventh Schedule (Lists I, II, III) is the constitutional basis for division, but List III (Concurrent List) is key to overlap.

Overlap exists due to constitutional design, administrative efficiency, and national uniformity requirements.

Cooperative federalism is essential for effective governance in shared areas.

Policy examples like Health and Environment clearly demonstrate this shared domain.

Shared responsibility requires coordination, funding mechanisms, and joint policy-making.

Challenges include potential conflict and coordination issues.

Success depends on inter-governmental trust and collaboration.

Federalism: Division of powers between central and state governments.

Seventh Schedule: Constitutional provision listing legislative subjects (Union List, State List, Concurrent List).

Union List (List I): Subjects where Union has exclusive power (e.g., defence, foreign affairs).

State List (List II): Subjects where States have exclusive power (e.g., public order, police, public health – historically).

Concurrent List (List III): Subjects where both Union and States can legislate (e.g., criminal law, forest, education – added later, environment – implicit/explicit). Union law prevails in case of conflict.

Cooperative Federalism: Principle emphasizing collaboration between different levels of government.

Competitive Federalism: Principle emphasizing competition among states and between states and the centre for better governance.

Asymmetrical Federalism: Variations in the relationship of states with the centre (less relevant here, but part of India’s federal structure).

India operates under a federal system, characterized by a division of powers between the Union government and State governments. While the Constitution, particularly the Seventh Schedule, outlines distinct areas of legislative competence, the practical reality involves significant overlapping functions and shared responsibilities, moving beyond a strict compartmentalization. This intricate overlap is a defining feature of Indian federalism, necessitating continuous coordination and cooperation between the two levels of government to ensure effective governance and service delivery across the nation. Understanding this dynamic is crucial to appreciating the complexities of policy implementation and inter-governmental relations in India.

The overlapping functions stem primarily from the structure of the Seventh Schedule, which includes the Concurrent List (List III). This list explicitly allows both the Union and State legislatures to make laws on the same subjects. While the State List (List II) theoretically grants exclusive power to states on certain subjects, many areas traditionally listed there have developed overlapping dimensions due to national policy imperatives, technological advancements, or judicial interpretation. The constitutional provision that Union law prevails over State law on Concurrent List subjects in case of repugnancy (Article 254) underlines the Union’s ultimate authority but does not negate the State’s initial competence.

Reasoning for Overlap:

– Constitutional Design: The inclusion of the Concurrent List was a deliberate choice by the framers, recognizing that some subjects require both national oversight and local adaptation. It allows for uniformity in core principles while permitting flexibility in implementation.

– Administrative Efficiency and Policy Coherence: Many policy issues span state boundaries or require a national perspective for effective handling. Central guidance, funding, and standard-setting can improve efficiency and ensure a baseline level of service or regulation across the country.

– National Interest and Uniformity: Certain areas, even if traditionally state subjects, might require national intervention or policy coherence to address issues of national importance (e.g., pandemics, environmental crises, economic disparities).

– Resource Mobilization: The Union often has greater fiscal resources, enabling it to fund and support state initiatives in shared areas, ensuring nationwide reach for schemes.

Examples from Key Policy Areas:

Health:

– Constitutionally, ‘Public Health and Sanitation; hospitals and dispensaries’ is in the State List (List II, Entry 6).

– However, the Union plays a massive role. ‘Population control and family planning’ (List III, Entry 20A) and ‘Lunacy and mental deficiency…’ (List III, Entry 16) are in the Concurrent List. More importantly, the Union government is heavily involved in health policy, planning, and funding through national missions and programs.

– Example: National Health Mission (NHM). This is a flagship Union government program implemented by states. The Union provides significant funding, sets guidelines, and monitors progress for areas like maternal health, child health, and communicable diseases. States are responsible for operationalizing primary healthcare centres, district hospitals, hiring staff, and delivering services on the ground according to state-specific needs and capacity, within the NHM framework.

– Shared Responsibilities: Policy formulation (shared input), funding (Union often primary source, states contribute), infrastructure development (shared), human resource management (primarily states, but national standards/training involved), service delivery (primarily states), disease surveillance (shared, requires state data collection and central coordination).

– Overlap is evident in crisis management like the COVID-19 pandemic, where the Union set national guidelines, procured vaccines centrally, and coordinated responses, while states were responsible for testing, treatment infrastructure, lockdowns (within guidelines), and vaccine distribution.

Environmental Governance:

– Environment is not explicitly in the original lists. It evolved as a shared responsibility post-Stockholm Conference (1972) and the 42nd Constitutional Amendment (1976).

– ‘Forests’ and ‘Protection of wild animals and birds’ were transferred from the State List to the Concurrent List (List III, Entries 17A and 17B). ‘Protection of environment’ is often read into the Concurrent List under general entries like ‘planning’ (List III, Entry 20) or derived from fundamental duties and directive principles, and Article 253 which allows Union legislation to implement international agreements.

– Example: Environmental Protection Act, 1986 (EPA). This is a comprehensive Union law enacted to implement international commitments and provide a framework for environmental protection. Under the EPA, the Union government establishes national standards (e.g., emission norms) and sets up regulatory bodies like the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB).

– Shared Responsibilities: Law formulation (Union sets framework), standard-setting (primarily Union), regulation and enforcement (CPCB at national level, State Pollution Control Boards – SPCBs – at state level; SPCBs implement national standards and state-specific rules), environmental impact assessment (shared, with central and state expert committees), forest management (shared, Union provides funds and guidelines, states manage forests on the ground), wildlife protection (shared, national parks/sanctuaries managed by states under national acts).

– Overlap is seen in managing pollution: CPCB sets standards, SPCBs issue permits, monitor compliance, and take action based on those standards and state rules. Both levels share responsibility during environmental disasters or for national programs like Swachh Bharat Abhiyan or climate action plans.

This shared landscape, while promoting national cohesion and minimum standards, also presents challenges. Potential for conflict arises if Union and State policies diverge or if funding mechanisms are contentious. It requires robust institutional mechanisms for inter-governmental consultation, such as the Inter-State Council, and a spirit of cooperative federalism to navigate these overlaps effectively for the benefit of the citizens.

In conclusion, India’s federal framework is characterized by a pragmatic rather than rigid division of powers. The extensive overlap in functions and shared responsibilities, particularly evident in subjects like health and environmental governance residing in or effectively operating under the Concurrent sphere, is fundamental to its working. This dynamic is a product of deliberate constitutional design and the practical necessities of governing a diverse nation. Effective governance in these areas hinges on the principles of cooperative federalism, requiring the Union and States to collaborate on policy formulation, funding, and implementation. While potential for friction exists, the shared domain ultimately strengthens the system by enabling national coordination while allowing for local responsiveness, highlighting the interdependent nature of India’s Union and State governments.