8 Nature of Indian Constitution
A system of Single Constitution for both the centre and the state (except J & K, which has its own Constitution and thus enjoys a special status by virtue of Article 370 of the Constitution).
Strong Center with overwhelming powers.
The constitution is more flexible than rigid as major portions can be amended by the parliament alone.
The parliament under Article 3 can increase or decrease the area of any state or alter the boundaries or change the name of any State with a simple majority.
Interference of the Parliament in the state list, if the Rajya Sabha passes a resolution to that effect in national interest (Art.249)
Provision of Single citizenship i.e citizenship of India common to all the people of the states and the union territories.
Single integrated judicial system headed by the Supreme Court to enforce the laws of both the central and State Govt.
The constitution grants extraordinary powers to the centre during all the three types of emergencies i.e. National Emergency (Art 352), State Emergency (Art 356) and Financial Emergency (Art 360)
The centralised election machinery to conduct elections to both the parliament and the state legislature (Art 324).
The accounts of the states are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, who is appointed and removed by the president.
The constitution of India is a flexible form of Federation - a federation of its own kind - federation sui generis.
Prof. K.C Wheare described the constitution of India as 'Quasi-Federal' and remarked that' India Union is a unitary state with subsidiary federal features rather than a federal state with subsidiary unitary features.
Preamble is useful in interpreting the Constitution
The Preamble is the key to open the mind of the makers. But it does not mean that the preamble can override the express provisions of the Act. In Berubari's case the Supreme Court held that the Preamble was not a part of the Constitution and therefore it could never be regarded as a source of any substantive powers. Such powers are expressly granted in the body of the Constitution. What is true about the powers is equally true about the prohibitions. It has limited application and can be restored to where there is any ambiguity in the statute. If the terms used in the Constitution are ambiguous or capable of two meanings in interpreting them some assistance may be taken from the objectives enshrined in the Constitutions and the construction, which fits the preamble, may be preferred.
But in Kesavananda Bharati's case, the Supreme Court rejected the above view and held that the preamble is the part of the Constitution. Though in any ordinary statute not much importance is attached to the preamble, all importance has to be attached to the preamble in a Constitutional Statute. Sikri, C.J. observed, "no authority has been referred before us to establish the propositions that what is true about the powers is equally true about the prohibitions and limitations. Even from the Preamble limitations have been derived in some cases ...It seems to me that the Preamble of our Constitution is of extreme importance and the Constitution should be read and interpreted in the light of the grand and noble vision expressed in the Preamble". In fact, the Preamble was relied on in imposing implied limitations on the amending power of Parliament under Article 368 of the Constitution. In that case, it was held that the "basic elements” in the Preamble couldn't be amended under Article 368.
