Fundamental Rights

Basics: Factual Aspects to be revised from Laxmikanth

Significance of Fundamental Rights

The Fundamental Rights of the Indian Constitution are significant in the

following respects:
•They form the bedrock of the democratic system and facilitate people’s
participation in the politico-administrative process.
•They serve as bulwarks of individual liberty and the rule of law by keeping a
check on the authoritarianism of the state.
•They lay down the foundation of social justice and ensure the dignity of
individuals.
•They protect the interests of minorities and weaker sections, thus promoting
social justice.
•They strengthen the secular fabric of the nation.
Criticism of the Fundamental Rights
•Excessive Limitations – They face numerous exceptions,
restrictions, and qualifications, imposing restrictions on their scope
and effectiveness.
•No Social and Economic Rights – The list lacks
comprehensiveness, focusing primarily on political rights without
including essential social and economic rights such as the right to
social security, employment, rest, leisure, etc.
•No Clarity – There is a lack of clarity as a few terms are expressed
vaguely and ambiguously without a clear definition, for example-
‘public order’, ‘minorities’, ‘reasonable restrictions’, etc.
•No Permanency – They are not sacrosanct or absolute, as the
Parliament can curtail or abolish them, for example – the abolition of
the fundamental right to property in 1978.
•Suspension during Emergency – The suspension of fundamental rights during a
National Emergency, except for Articles 20 and 21, undermines the essence of
democracy, posing a threat to the rights of millions of innocent individuals.
•Expensive Remedy – The judiciary bears the burden of safeguarding these rights from
legislative and executive encroachments. However, the costly nature of the judicial
process impedes ordinary citizens from effectively enforcing their rights through the
courts.
•Preventive Detention – The provision of preventive detention (Article 22) undermines
the essence of fundamental rights, granting excessive discretion to the State and
infringing upon individual liberty.
•No consistent philosophy – The fundamental rights chapter lacks a coherent
philosophical foundation. According to Sir Ivor Jennings, these rights are not grounded
in any consistent philosophy, posing challenges for the judiciary in their interpretation.
 KEY DEBATES
Important Articles
Article 19

Article 19 guarantees to every Citizen of India the

following six basic, fundamental freedoms-
19(a). Freedom of speech and expression.
19(b).Freedom to assemble peaceably and without arms
19(c). Freedom to form associations or unions or co-
operative societies
19(d). Freedom to move freely throughout the territory of
India
19(e). Freedom to reside and settle in any part of the
territory of India and
19(g). Freedom to practise any profession, or to carry on
any occupation trade or business
Restrictions on Freedom

1. Sovereignty and integrity of the country.

2. Friendly relations with foreign countries.
3. Public order.
4. Security of the State.
5. Decency or morality.
6. Defamation.
7. Contempt of Court.
8. Incitement to an Offence.
Significance of Freedom of Speech and Expression

1.In a democracy, the freedom of speech and expression is one of the prime
liberties granted to the citizens. It forms a foundation for other rights granted to
citizens, such as the freedom of the press. Freedom of the press, in turn, helps in
inculcating a better-informed public and electorate.

2. It ensures that citizens can express their opinions freely and hold their political
leaders accountable. Also, this freedom ensures that important information is
legally shared and circulated among citizens.

3. It also provides a platform to make the marginalized and minority voices

heard. Issues that concern these groups can be highlighted and brought to the
forefront by using the right to freedom of speech and expression.

4. The freedom of speech and expression protects the creative license of artists
and allows them to develop and share ideas freely. These can be academic
writings, satirical work, theatre, cartoons, visual arts, and stand-up comedies
Landmark Judgements

In Romesh Thappar v State of Madras, 1950 the Supreme Court held that the
freedom of speech and expression includes freedom to propagate ideas which is
ensured by freedom of circulation of a publication. Moreover, freedom of speech and
of the Press was declared to be the foundation of all democratic organisations.

The cases of Bennet and Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, 1973 and Indian
Express Newspapers (Bombay) P. Ltd v. Union of India, 1986 extended freedom
of expression to corporations and the SC declared that limitations on the right outside
the purview of Article 19(2) are not valid.

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 the SC ruled that freedom of speech
and expression was not limited by geographical limitations or boundaries and
claimed that Article 19(1)(a) encompasses both the right to speak and the freedom to
express in India and abroad.
In People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, 1997 the SC declared that telephone
tapping violates Article 19(1)(a) unless it comes within the grounds of reasonable restrictions under
Article 19(2).

The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms, 2002 observed
that one-sided facts, disinformation, misinformation, and non-information all lead to democracy is a
farce.”

The Supreme Court introduced a new dimension to freedom of speech and expression in Rakeysh
Omprakash Mehra & Anr. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2013 (197) DLT 413: That our written
Constitution guarantees not only freedom of speech but also freedom after speech

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66-A of the Information
Technology Act, 2000 on the ground that it gave unfettered discretion to the executive, in the
absence of an elaborate definition of the words used in the provision, to initiate criminal
prosecution against any person who caused annoyance in an indecent manner, a vague offense

In Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India and Ors, 2020 the SC ruled that freedom to access the
Internet is a fundamental right and is protected under Article 19(1)(a)
Sedition Versus Right to Free Speech and Expression

Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code penalizes anyone who by words, either
spoken or written or by visible representation or by otherwise attempts to bring
disaffection, hatred, or contempt against the government established by law.

The colonial-era law of sedition has been widely criticized for serving as a
restriction on free speech and expression.

Even though the explanations in the section make it clear that only attempts to
excite hatred, contempt, or disaffection led to sedition and lawful criticism with
a view of obtaining change do not amount to sedition, the law has been widely
abused.

For an act to amount to sedition, there must be an intention to cause public

disorder or disturbance and hinder public peace.
The Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar put a limit
on the scope of Section 124A, whereby only the individuals using free speech and
expression to incite violence and disrupt the law can be penalized.

In the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the court emphasized that there
must be a degree of proximity between the words spoken or expressed and the
public disorder that takes place.

There has been a continued trend where charges of sedition have been pressed
against individuals for criticizing the government. Due to this abuse of the law,
demands have been made to abolish the Section to protect the sanctity of free
speech and expression.

Recently in a petition against the sedition case filed against the Senior journalist,
Vinod Dua, Vinod Dua v. Union of India, the Supreme Court upheld his journalistic
freedom and said that every journalist is entitled to protection and the sedition law
must be applied as provided in the Kedarnath judgment. A BJP leader in Himachal
Pradesh had filed an FIR against Vinod Dua for criticising the Prime Minister and
the Union government on his Youtube channel. The court quashed the FIR
Contempt of Court

Restriction on the freedom of speech and expression can be imposed if it exceeds

the reasonable and fair limit and amounts to contempt of court.
The first Indian statute on the law of contempt, i.e., the Contempt of Courts Act was
passed in 1926. It was later replaced by the Contempt of Courts Act, of 1952. The
1952 Act was subsequently replaced by the Contempt of Courts Act, of 1971.

According to the 1971 Act, Contempt of court may be either ‘civil or ‘criminal.’
Civil contempt is 'wilful disobedience to any judgment/ decree/ direction/ order/
writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.’

Criminal contempt includes the publication (in any form) of any matter or the doing
of any other act whatsoever which scandalises the court or lowers its authority, or
prejudices or interferes with court proceedings or administration of justice in any
manner.
Indian contempt law was amended in 2006 to make “truth” a defence. The
qualification however is that such a defence should not cover up to escape from the
consequences of a deliberate effort to scandalise the court.

However, even after such an amendment, a person can be punished for the
statement unless they were made in the public interest.

In Het Ram Beniwal v. Raghuveer Singh, 2017 judgment the SC held that the
power of contempt must be exercised sparingly and in cases when there is a
calculated effort to undermine the judiciary, and not in a routine manner.
Fake News / Disinformation
• Technology, Social Media, Cheaper Access to the Internet, and TRP Races are
major contributors
• Fake news or disinformation in India usually takes the following forms:
• Targeting a minority and spreading false news implicating them in violent
activities.
• Targeting individuals and spreading false news to tarnish their credibility and
reputation.
• Spreading fake news about public personalities and their supposed heroics
increases their standing and influences political outcomes.
• Malicious fake news is designed to spread paranoia and mistrust among people.

Reasons for Prevalence: It is increasingly used as a political tool by parties to

influence and polarise opinion. The proliferation of technology, cheaper devices and
affordable access to the internet has reduced the cost of spreading fake news.
Increased use of private encrypted messaging apps and social media platforms
whose business models thrive on “viral content” and number of views.

Judgment: In Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India, 2020 the SC recognized the
problem of infodemics in India and passed an order asking the state governments to
comply with the directions issued by the Centre to curb the menace of fake news.
Conflation of Free Speech and Curbing Fake News in Legislation:
Information Technology Act, 2008 (IT Act) and IT Rules – Contrary to 2011
rules under the Act which provided immunity to social media platforms as
‘intermediaries’ for inception, transmission and reception of fake content through
their networks, they are now directed to proactively censor content by the
government. This is detrimental to free speech.

Disaster Management Act, 2005 (DMA) – Section 54 of the DMA purports to

deal with ‘false alarm or warning as to disaster or its severity or magnitude,
leading to panic’. The offence is punishable with imprisonment up to 1 year and
the imposition of a fine. The provision is limited to the period of the disaster.
Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Section 505(1)(b) deals with the spreading of false
and mischievous content that results in fear or alarm to the public, or to any
section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence
against the state or public tranquillity. Its application to fake news is however
dubious as the latter is disguised as real news and more importantly, its source is
often difficult to trace.

Recommendation: the government must consistently invest in increasing voter

awareness, voter literacy, a robust fact-checking environment and critical
thinking among the masses. Social media platforms — through which fake news
spreads so rapidly — on their part, should take efforts to identify and combat
such news
What is the Right to Strike
• A strike is a collective refusal by employees to work under the conditions
required by employers. Strikes arise for several reasons, though principally in
response to economic conditions (defined as an economic strike and meant to
improve wages and benefits) or labour practices (intended to improve work
conditions).
• Each country, whether it is democratic, capitalist, or socialist, gives the right to
strike to the workers. But this right must be the weapon of last resort because if
this right is misused, it will create a problem in the production and financial
profit of the industry.
• This would ultimately affect the economy of the country.
• In India, the right to protest is a fundamental right under Article 19 of the
Constitution of India.
• But the right to strike is not a fundamental right but a legal right and with this
right statutory restriction is attached in the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
• The Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is subsumed under The Industrial
Relations Code, 2020.
Article 21

Article 21 read as: “ No person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except
according to a procedure established by law.”

The right has been held to be the heart of the Constitution, the most organised &
progressive provision of our constitution, and the foundation of our laws.
Key Debates / Scope
Right to Die

Suicide: According to section 309 of IPC, "Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any
act towards the commission of such offence, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a
term which may extend to one year 1[or with fine, or with both].

1.P Rathinam vs UOI: In this case, it was held that if a person has attempted to commit
suicide, he must be unstable mentally and must be going through a lot already. And punishing a
person for trying to end his life because he was in trouble, would not help his mental health at
all.

2.Smt. Gian Kaur v. the State of Punjab: The Supreme Court held that the right to life is a
natural right while suicide is an unnatural extinction of life and therefore the latter is
inconsistent with the former. The court thus upheld the constitutional validity of Section 309.
Key Debates / Scope

Euthanasia:

•Active Euthanasia: involves an active intervention to end a person’s life with substances or
external force, such as administering a lethal injection.

•Passive / Negative or Non-aggressive Euthanasia is the denial of medical care necessary for
maintaining life, such as the denial of antibiotics when the patient is likely to die without them.
1.Aruna Shanbaug case (2011): The SC allowed passive euthanasia.
2.Common Cause Case (2018): The SC decided that passive euthanasia w ould be legally allowed
henceforth in India and also laid down guidelines for living wills.

•The requirement for the Magistrate’s approval has been replaced by an intimation to the Magistrate.
•The medical board must communicate its decision within 48 hours (no time limit earlier).
•Now a notary or gazetted officer can sign the living will in the presence of two witnesses instead of
the Magistrate’s countersign.
•In case the medical boards set up by the hospital refuse permission, it will now be open to the kin to
approach the High Court which will form a fresh medical team.
Key Debates / Scope

Death Sentence
Section 354 (5) of the CrPC specifies that hanging is the method of execution in the
civilian court system. According to the Army Act of 1950, the army court-martial
system recognises both hanging and shooting as legitimate methods of execution.
Between 2004 and 2015, approximately 1500 capital punishment verdicts were
issued, but only four convicts were hanged.

Basis of Death Penalty:

•Retribution: One of the key principles of retribution is that people should get what
they deserve in proportion to the severity of their crime. This argument states
that real justice requires people to suffer for their wrongdoing and to suffer in a way
appropriate for the crime.

•Deterrence: Capital punishment is often justified with the argument that by

executing convicted murderers, we will deter would-be murderers from killing
people.
Court on Death Penalty –
•Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab: It was determined that the death penalty is an exception
and life imprisonment is the rule, but the Supreme Court’s decision did not define the phrase
‘rarest of rare.’

•Swami Shraddananda case: The apex court had observed that where the apex court judges
“may feel somewhat reluctant in endorsing the death penalty… the court would take recourse
to the expanded option”. The expanded option is imprisonment for the rest of life without
remission.
Reason the Death Penalty persists:

•National Security: Some acts like waging war against the State,
terrorism etc. erode the sanctity of our National Security framework.

•Acts that shake the collective conscience: Supporters of Death

Penalty says that there are some acts which shakes the collective
conscience of society and deserves nothing except death penalty
•Arguments Against

•Capital punishment are of the view that retribution is immoral, and it is just a
sanitised form of vengeance. Capital punishment doesn't rehabilitate the prisoner
s and return them to society.

•Social Factors Against Capital Punishment: An analysis of the possible reasons to

avert the death penalty is reflected in a series of recent verdicts such as Lochan
Shrivas vs State of Chhattisgarh (2021) and Bhagchandra vs State of Madhya
Pradesh (2021).These reasons might include socio-economic backwardness,
mental health, heredity, parenting, socialisation, education, etc.

•Spent considerable time in jail due to an error by the State. However, if a person
is wrongly hanged, then no amount of compensation can bring back the person and
mitigate the error.
•Inhumane: Human rights and dignity are incompatible with the death penalty.
The death sentence is a violation of the right to life, which is the most
fundamental of all human rights.

•Global Precedent – No correlation with low crime rates: Scandinavian countries

like Norway, Sweden and Finland have one of the lowest crime rates in the world
without death penalty. They focus on reforming the criminal rather than deterring
him/her with stricter and harsh punishments.

The Law Commission in its 262nd report proposed that the death penalty should
be abolished for all crimes excluding terrorism-related offences and war.

The experience of the Scandinavian countries also supports this view. However,
till the time it happens, there should be proper implementation of the Bachan
Singh Judgment by the Indian Courts.
Procedure Established by Law VS Due Process of Law
After a discussion between the Constitutional Assembly Advisor, Sir B.N. Rau,
and Frankfurter J. of the United States of America Supreme Court, who stated
that the due process clause is undemocratic and burdensome to the judiciary
because it empowers judges to invalidate legislation enacted, the constituent
assembly used the term ‘procedure established by law’.

The constituent debate's preference for "process defined by law" was to give
parliamentary supremacy in law making with appropriate constitutional and
judicial safeguards for "personal liberty" against judicial supremacy. The
supremacy of the legislature was maintained by the constituent assembly.
It signifies that if a law has been passed by the Parliament by following the
proper procedure, then it will be a valid law.

Implementing this concept indicates that a person might be deprived of his life or
personal liberty according to the procedure established by law.
AK Gopalan vs UOI: AK Gopalan, a political leader, was arrested in Madras under
the Preventive Detention act 1950. He claimed that the action taken under the Prevention
Detention Act violated his fundamental rights under Article 14, 19 and Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution. He also claimed that the phrase procedure established by law in
Article 21 refers to due process of law. In his case, the procedure followed was not proper,
resulting in a breach of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The Supreme Court ruled that if the government takes away an individual’s freedom in
accordance with the procedure established by law, i.e., if the imprisonment was done by
following the proper procedure, then it will not be considered a breach of Articles 14, 19,
and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Court took a narrow interpretation of Article 21 in
this case.

However, in this case, Justice Fazal Ali gave a dissenting opinion. He said that the meaning
of the term procedure established by law also implies the due process of law, which
indicates that no one should be left without the opportunity of being heard i.e., Audi
alteram partum (no person shall be left unheard) since it is one of the important principles
of natural justice.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India: The passport of Maneka Gandhi was detained by
officials under the provisions of the Passport act. The petitioner went to the Supreme Court
under Article 32 and argued that the government’s act of seizing her passport was a clear
violation of her personal liberty under Article 21. This decision greatly expanded the ambit of
Article 21 and accomplished the purpose of making our country a welfare state, as mentioned
in the Preamble. The Court concluded that the procedure established by law ought to be fair,
just, and reasonable.

The Court noted that the procedure specified by law for depriving a person of his right to life
and personal liberty must be proper, reasonable, and fair, rather than discretionary,
whimsical, and oppressive.
An individual’s life and freedoms can be taken away only when the following requirements
are satisfied:
•The law must be valid.
•There must be a proper procedure.
•That procedure should be just, fair, and not arbitrary.
If the procedure provided by law is frivolous, oppressive, or unreasonable, then it should not
be considered a procedure at all. A system must be reasonable or just to represent the idea of
natural justice.
Right to be Forgotten

•It is the right to have publicly available personal information removed

from the internet, search engines, databases, websites or any other
public platforms.
•One can seek this right when their personal information is no longer
necessary or relevant and the presence of his/her digital footprint
violates their right to privacy.

•This right has been recognised as a statutory right in the EU (as “right
to erasure”) under the General Data Protection Regulation
(GDPR) and has been upheld by a number of courts in the UK and
elsewhere in Europe.
•Position in India:
• In India, there is no statutory framework that prescribes the right
to be forgotten.
• However, the Personal Data Protection Bill 2019 and court
rulings have expressly recognised this right.

•The Personal Data Protection (PDP) Bill 2019:

• The Bill gave an individual the right to restrict or prevent the
continued disclosure of their personal data when such data -
• Has served the purpose for which it was collected.
• Was made with the individual's consent, which has since been
withdrawn.
• Was made contrary to the PDP Bill or any law in force.
•The court rulings:
• The SC in the landmark KS Puttaswamy or Right to privacy
judgement (2017) recognised that the right to control his/her own life would
also encompass his/her right to control their existence on the internet.

• Since the right to privacy verdict, high courts have taken a broader view of
the issue. For example,
• In 2019, the Delhi HC said the “right to be forgotten” and “right to be
left alone” are inherent aspects of the right to privacy.
• In 2021, the Delhi HC extended the right to be forgotten to even
a criminal case by ruling to take down search results relating to an
American law student (acquitted in a customs case).
• In 2020, the Orissa HC held that the right to be forgotten is a thorny
issue in terms of practicality and technological nuances and needs a
widespread debate.
Significance of the Right to be Forgotten
The right to be forgotten is a complex legal concept that
can have both advantages and disadvantages. Here are
some of the key advantages of the right to be forgotten:
Protects Privacy: The right to be forgotten can help
individuals protect their privacy and personal
information by allowing them to request the removal of
their personal information from online platforms or
search engines.
Reduces the Risk of Harm: The right to be forgotten can
help reduce the risk of harm to individuals by preventing
their personal information from being used for
malicious purposes, such as identity theft.
Supports Freedom of Expression: The right to be
forgotten can support freedom of expression by
allowing individuals to control their personal
information and ensure that it is accurate and up-to-
date.
Challenges
Here are some of the key challenges of the right to be
forgotten:
Limitations on free speech: The right to be forgotten
can potentially limit freedom of speech and the public’s
right to access information, as it can result in the
removal of legitimate and important information from
online platforms or search engines.
Technical challenges: The implementation of the right to
be forgotten can be technically challenging, as it
requires online platforms and search engines to develop
complex systems for managing and removing personal
information.
Conflicts with other legal rights: The right to be
forgotten can conflict with other legal rights, such as
the right to access information, the right to freedom of
expression, and the right to conduct research and
journalism.
Conclusion
Overall, the right to be forgotten is still in the process of development in India,
and there is no specific case that has been solely responsible for its
development. Moreover, with the recognition of the right to privacy as a
fundamental right and the introduction of the Personal Data Protection Bill,
the right to be forgotten is gaining increasing attention from both the courts
and the legislature in India.

However, it is important to carefully balance the right to be forgotten with

other legal and social interests, such as freedom of expression and access to
information, in order to ensure that it is used in a responsible and ethical
manner.
Right to Protection from Climate Change Impacts

Recently, the Supreme Court of India acknowledged the right to

protection from climate change impacts as part
of the fundamental rights to life (Article
21) and equality (Article 14) enshrined in the Indian
Constitution.

•This ruling came during a case concerning the conservation of

the Great Indian Bustard and the Lesser Florican.

•SC noted that the intersection of climate change and human

rights has been put into sharp focus in recent years.
SC Judgment on Climate Change

The Supreme Court has extended the ambit of Articles 14 and 21 of

the fundamental right and ruled that people have the right to be free
from the adverse effects of climate change.
•Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantee fundamental
rights to equality and life respectively.
•In a very recent event, the right to a clean environment was also
considered a fundamental right under the Right to Life of Article 21.
•The court also highlighted the interconnection between climate
change and various human rights, including the right to health,
indigenous rights, gender equality, and the right to development.
Expanding the Scope of the Right to Life

•The Supreme Court, in its judgment, noted that the right to life under Article 21
must be interpreted progressively to include the right to a clean and healthy
environment, which is essential for the enjoyment of other fundamental rights.

•Justice S. Ravindra Bhat stated that the “right to life” must be understood to
include the “right to a healthy environment, free from the adverse effects of
climate change.”

•This interpretation expands the traditional understanding of the right to life,

recognizing the intrinsic link between human well-being and the state of the
environment.
Let’s Practice Answer Writing
Discuss the significance of Supreme Court judgement in K.S. Puttaswamy case. What steps
Indian government should take to protect the privacy of Indian citizens?
 Concept of the Day

Cooperative, Competitive and Confrontational

Federalism
Cooperative federalism implies States and Centre cooperating with each
other to realise the developmental goals of the country.

It calls for a joint focus on the national development goals by the Centre
and States, and the advocacy of concerns and issues of States and Union
Territories with Central Ministries.

The idea of competitive federalism, on the other hand, promotes

competition between Centre and States as well as among States for
economic benefits.

In cooperative federalism, the relationship between States and Centre is

horizontal, and in competitive federalism, it is vertical between States
and Centre and horizontal among states.
In Cooperative federalism the Centre and states share a horizontal
relationship, where they “cooperate” for national development and
fulfill social goals together.

• In such federalism the resources and expertise of both centre

and states are shared to achieve the common goal of
development.
• It enable participation of states in the formulation and
implementation of welfare policies.
• Union and the states are constitutionally obliged to cooperate
with each other on the matters specified in Schedule VII of
the constitution.
• It ensures that convergence between the federating units i.e.
centre and states.
•In Competitive federalism the relationship between the Central and state
governments is vertical and between state governments is horizontal.
•In early years of Independence, states were dependent on central grants distributed
through Finance Commission and Planning Commission.
•This idea of Competitive federalism gained significance in India post 1990s
economic reforms.
•In a free-market economy, the endowments of states, available resource base and
their comparative advantages all foster a spirit of competition.
Increasing globalisation, however, increased the existing inequalities and
imbalances between states.
•In Competitive federalism States need to compete among themselves and also with
the Centre for benefits.
• States compete to attract funds and investment, which facilitates
efficiency in administration and enhances developmental activities. eg:
Investor summits in various states.

• Investors prefer more developed states for investing their money. The
union government devolves funds to the states based on usage of
previously allocated funds.

• Healthy competition strives to improve physical and social

infrastructure within the state.
In confrontational federalism, the central Govt. tries to transgress into the
powers of the state Govt.

• It is a relatively new phenomenon as compared to cooperative and

competitive federalism.
• As per Constitutional experts central government's decision of using a
concurrent List to make laws on state list subjects is a form of confrontational
federalism.
• The passing of farm laws, despite agriculture being a state subject.
• The partisan role of the governor in many states has become a case of
confrontational federalism. For instance, role of the Governor in Tamil Nadu
became controversial.