This research paper undertakes a comparative analysis of federalism in India and the United States during emergencies, examining how constitutional frameworks, historical contexts, and judicial interpretations shape centralization tendencies and state autonomy. India's quasi-federal system, with its unitary bias, facilitates centralized control through explicit constitutional provisions like Articles 352 (National Emergency) and 356 (President's Rule), as evidenced by the 1975 National Emergency and the COVID-19 response in 2020.

In contrast, the US's purer federalism, rooted in state sovereignty, relies on statutory mechanisms like the National Emergencies Act of 1976, preserving state-led responses, as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2021). The study highlights India's unitary shift during crises, which ensures uniformity but risks eroding state autonomy, versus the US's cooperative federalism, which fosters flexibility but faces coordination challenges.

Judicial roles differ, with India's post-emergency activism (e.g., Minerva Mills v. Union of India) contrasting the US's judicial restraint. Through case studies, challenges, and opportunities, the paper offers insights into balancing national unity and regional autonomy, proposing reforms like curbing Article 356 misuse in India and enhancing federal-state coordination in the US. The findings underscore federalism's adaptability in diverse democracies, with implications for governance in modern crises such as climate emergencies.

Research Methodology
This research paper employs a qualitative, comparative case study approach to analyze federalism in India and the United States during emergencies. The methodology is designed to examine constitutional frameworks, historical instances, and judicial interpretations, focusing on centralization tendencies and state autonomy.

By integrating doctrinal legal analysis, historical evaluation, and comparative assessment, the study ensures a robust exploration of the research question: How do India and the US navigate federalism during emergencies, and what are the implications for governance?

Research Design

• Define the research design: Qualitative and comparative, focusing on two case studies.
• Qualitative Approach: The study relies on qualitative methods to interpret textual data, including constitutional texts, legal documents, and scholarly literature. This approach allows for an in-depth understanding of complex federal dynamics and contextual nuances.
• Comparative Case Study: Two case studies—India's 1975 National Emergency and the US's COVID-19 pandemic response (2020–2021)—are selected to represent significant emergencies in each country. These cases provide concrete examples of federalism under stress, enabling cross-national comparison.

Data Collection

• Primary Sources:
  • Constitutional Texts: The Indian Constitution (1950) and the US Constitution (1789) to analyze emergency provisions and power divisions.
  • Statutory Laws: India's Disaster Management Act, 2005, and the US's National Emergencies Act, 1976, to understand statutory frameworks.
  • Case Law: Indian cases (Minerva Mills v. Union of India, 1980; S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, 1994) and US cases (South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 2020) to assess judicial roles.
  • Government Reports: India's Sarkaria Commission Report (1988) and US Congressional Research Service reports (2021) for policy insights.
• Secondary Sources:
  • Scholarly books (e.g., Laxmikanth, 2022; Wheare, 1963) for theoretical and historical context.
  • Journal articles (e.g., Joshi, 2023; Sharma, 2021) for contemporary analyses.
  • Online resources (e.g., PRS India, National Governors Association) for recent data on emergency responses.

Data Analysis

• Doctrinal Legal Analysis: Examines constitutional and statutory provisions to understand legal frameworks governing emergencies. This includes interpreting Articles 352, 356, and 360 in India and the US's enumerated powers and Tenth Amendment.
• Historical Analysis: Evaluates the 1975 Emergency and COVID-19 response to assess federal-state dynamics, centralization, and autonomy. Historical context is drawn from primary and secondary sources to situate each case.
• Comparative Analysis: Compares India's unitary-biased federalism with the US's state-centric model, focusing on centralization, state autonomy, and judicial oversight. A thematic approach identifies similarities and differences across the case studies.

Selection Criteria for Case Studies

• India: 1975 National Emergency: Chosen for its significant centralization, misuse of Article 356, and post-emergency judicial reforms, representing a critical test of Indian federalism.
• US: COVID-19 Pandemic (2020–2021): Selected for its decentralized response, highlighting state autonomy and federal coordination challenges, relevant to contemporary federalism.

Limitations

• Scope: The study focuses on two case studies, limiting generalizability across all emergencies.
• Data Access: Some primary sources, such as internal government correspondence, may be inaccessible, relying on secondary interpretations.
• Temporal Bias: Recent data on COVID-19 may lack long-term perspective compared to the well-documented 1975 Emergency.

Ethical Considerations

• The study uses publicly available data, ensuring no ethical concerns regarding privacy or consent.
• Objectivity is maintained by cross-referencing multiple sources to avoid bias in interpreting politically sensitive events like the 1975 Emergency.

This methodology ensures a systematic, evidence-based comparison of Indian and US federalism, providing rigorous insights into their emergency governance models.


Introduction
Federalism, as a system of governance, establishes a dynamic balance between central authority and subnational units, enabling shared sovereignty while accommodating regional diversity. In India and the United States, federalism manifests through distinct constitutional frameworks that delineate powers between the central government and states. India's federal structure, often described as quasi-federal, leans toward central dominance, particularly during crises, due to its unitary bias embedded in the Constitution.

In contrast, the US embodies a purer form of federalism, with states retaining significant autonomy, even in emergencies, rooted in a bottom-up federation formed by independent states. This comparative study examines how federalism in these two democracies functions during emergencies, focusing on the interplay between centralization and state autonomy, shaped by constitutional provisions, historical precedents, and judicial interpretations.

The significance of federalism lies in its ability to manage diversity and ensure stability in large, pluralistic nations. In India, federalism accommodates linguistic, cultural, and regional diversity within a single nation-state, necessitated by the post-independence imperative of national unity. The Indian Constitution, through the Seventh Schedule, divides powers into Union, State, and Concurrent Lists, granting the Union precedence in conflicts.

Conversely, the US Constitution, under Article I, Section 8, and the Tenth Amendment[1], explicitly limits federal powers to enumerated domains, reserving residual powers for states. This structural divergence sets the stage for differing responses to emergencies, where the balance of power is tested.

The objective of this study is to analyze how India and the US navigate federalism during emergencies, comparing tendencies toward centralization and the preservation of state autonomy. Emergencies-whether political, economic, or public health-related-challenge federal systems by necessitating swift, coordinated action, often prompting central governments to encroach upon state powers.

In India, constitutional provisions like Articles 352 (National Emergency), 356 (President's Rule), and 360 (Financial Emergency)[2] explicitly empower the Union to assume greater control, often transforming the federal structure into a unitary one. Historical instances, such as the 1975 National Emergency[3], illustrate this shift, where the central government suspended fundamental rights and overridden state powers.

In the US, the absence of explicit emergency provisions in the Constitution means reliance on statutory mechanisms, like the National Emergencies Act of 1976[4], and executive actions. The COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021) highlighted the US's decentralized approach, with states leading public health responses while the federal government provided coordination through agencies like the CDC and FEMA.

The scope of this study encompasses constitutional frameworks, historical case studies, and judicial interpretations that shape federalism during emergencies. In India, judicial rulings, such as Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980),[5] have scrutinized the misuse of emergency powers, reinforcing federal principles post-crisis. In the US, Supreme Court decisions, like those during the Civil War or New Deal era, have clarified the boundaries of federal authority, often preserving state sovereignty. By examining these elements, the study highlights how constitutional design and historical context influence emergency governance.

This paper argues that while both India and the US maintain federal structures, their approaches to emergencies reveal distinct dynamics. India's quasi-federal system, with its unitary bias, facilitates centralized control during crises, often at the expense of state autonomy, as seen in the 1975 Emergency and the COVID-19 response.

The US, with its robust federalism, preserves greater state autonomy, evident in state-led pandemic responses, though this can lead to coordination challenges. These differences stem from India's top-down constitutional design, prioritizing national unity, and the US's bottom-up federation, emphasizing state sovereignty.

By comparing these systems, the study offers insights into balancing national cohesion with regional autonomy in federal democracies, with implications for governance in diverse societies facing modern crises, such as climate emergencies or global pandemics. Through this analysis, the paper aims to contribute to the discourse on federalism's resilience and adaptability in times of crisis.

Literature Review
The study of federalism during emergencies in India and the United States has garnered significant scholarly attention, focusing on constitutional frameworks, centralization tendencies, and state autonomy. This literature review synthesizes key works that inform the comparative analysis of Indian and US federalism, highlighting their approaches to crisis governance, judicial roles, and intergovernmental dynamics.

In the Indian context, scholars emphasize the quasi-federal nature of the Constitution, which balances federal principles with a unitary bias. Laxmikanth (2022) in Indian Polity provides a comprehensive overview of the constitutional division of powers through the Seventh Schedule, noting that provisions like Articles 352 (National Emergency) and 356 (President's Rule)[6] enable central dominance during crises.

He argues that India's federalism, designed to ensure national unity post-independence, prioritizes central control, as seen in the 1975 National Emergency. Joshi (2023) [7]in Journal of Indian Constitutional Studies examines the 1975 Emergency, highlighting how the suspension of fundamental rights and extensive use of Article 356 undermined state autonomy. Joshi underscores post-emergency judicial activism, particularly Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), which reinforced constitutional checks. Sharma (2021) in Indian Journal of Political Science analyzes the COVID-19 response, noting that the Union's invocation of the Disaster Management Act, 2005[8], centralized decision-making, relegating states to implementation roles.

These works collectively suggest that India's emergency framework facilitates a unitary shift, raising concerns about federal erosion.

US federalism, characterized by state sovereignty, is explored in contrast. Corwin (1947) in American Political Science Review argues that the absence of explicit constitutional emergency provisions limits federal authority, requiring reliance on statutory laws like the National Emergencies Act of 1976[9]. He notes that the Tenth Amendment preserves state powers, fostering cooperative federalism during crises.

The Congressional Research Service (2021) [10]examines the COVID-19 response, highlighting state-led public health measures and federal coordination via agencies like FEMA and the CDC. The report identifies coordination challenges due to varying state capacities, as seen in inconsistent lockdown policies. Wheare (1963) in Federal Government describes US federalism as a bottom-up system, where states' pre-existing sovereignty shapes decentralized crisis responses, as evidenced by historical cases like the Great Depression and Civil War. Judicial restraint, as seen in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom (2020), [11]reinforces state autonomy, contrasting with India's judicial interventions.

Comparative studies provide further insights. The Sarkaria Commission Report (1988) [12]on Centre-State Relations in India critiques the misuse of Article 356, advocating for cooperative federalism through institutions like the Inter-State Council. In the US, the National Governors Association (2020) highlights intergovernmental collaboration, suggesting a model for addressing coordination gaps.

Scholars like Sharma (2021) compare India's centralized COVID-19 response with the US's decentralized approach, noting that India's uniformity contrasts with the US's flexibility but risks over-centralization. Joshi (2023) argues that India's emergency provisions, while ensuring stability, contrast with the US's reliance on statutory flexibility, which preserves federal balance but complicates national responses.

Gaps in the literature include limited comparative analyses of non-traditional emergencies, such as climate crises, and the role of digital governance in federal systems. This study builds on existing works by examining specific case studies-the 1975 Emergency and COVID-19-while addressing challenges and opportunities for balancing national unity and regional autonomy. By integrating constitutional, historical, and judicial perspectives, it contributes to understanding federalism's resilience in diverse democracies.

Federalism In India And The US: An Overview

Federalism, as a governance model, structures the distribution of power between central and subnational entities, balancing national unity with regional autonomy. India and the United States, two of the world's largest democracies, adopt federal systems tailored to their unique historical, cultural, and political contexts.

This section provides a comparative overview of Indian and US federalism, detailing their constitutional frameworks, historical underpinnings, and key differences. India's quasi-federal structure, with a unitary bias, contrasts with the US's purer federal character, emphasizing state sovereignty. These distinctions-rooted in constitutional design, historical evolution, and governance approaches-shape how each nation navigates the challenges of federalism, particularly during emergencies.

1. Indian Federalism
   Indian federalism is often described as quasi-federal, blending federal principles with a strong unitary bias to ensure national cohesion in a diverse nation. The Indian Constitution, enacted in 1950, establishes a federal framework but grants the Union government significant authority, particularly in times of crisis. This structure reflects the post-independence imperative to unify a nation marked by linguistic, cultural, and religious diversity, while addressing the challenges of partition and regional disparities.
   
   The constitutional framework for Indian federalism is articulated in the Seventh Schedule, which divides legislative powers into three lists: the Union List, the State List, and the Concurrent List. The Union List includes 97 subjects, such as defense, foreign affairs, and currency, over which the central government has exclusive authority. The State List, with 66 subjects like public health, agriculture, and local governance, grants states autonomy in these domains.
   
   The Concurrent List, comprising 47 subjects such as education and marriage, allows both the Union and states to legislate, with Union laws prevailing in case of conflict. This division, while federal in appearance, tilts toward central dominance, as the Union can legislate on State List subjects under specific circumstances, such as during emergencies (Article 356) or with state consent (Article 252). Additionally, residuary powers-those not explicitly assigned-rest with the Union (Article 248), unlike in many federal systems where they lie with subnational units.
   
   The historical context of Indian federalism underscores its unitary bias. Following independence in 1947, India faced the task of integrating princely states, managing linguistic diversity, and preventing fragmentation in the wake of partition. The Constituent Assembly, influenced by these challenges, designed a flexible federal system that prioritized national unity. The Government of India Act, 1935[13], which provided a blueprint for the Constitution, also favored a strong center to maintain administrative continuity.
   
   The result was a federal structure that scholars like K.C. Wheare describe as "federal in form but unitary in spirit," allowing the Union to override state autonomy when national interests are at stake. This centralizing tendency is evident in provisions like Article 356, which permits the imposition of President's Rule, effectively suspending state governments, and Article 360, which enables central control during financial emergencies.
    
2. US Federalism
   US federalism, in contrast, is characterized by a purer federal character, with a strong emphasis on state sovereignty and a limited central government. Established by the US Constitution in 1789, the American federal system emerged from a voluntary compact among independent states, reflecting a bottom-up approach to nation-building. This structure ensures that states retain significant autonomy, with the federal government confined to specific, enumerated powers.
   
   The constitutional framework of US federalism is defined by Article I, Section 8[14], which lists the federal government's enumerated powers, including taxation, defense, and interstate commerce. The Tenth Amendment reinforces state sovereignty by reserving all powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, to the states or the people.
   
   This clear delineation limits federal authority, leaving states with broad powers over areas like education, public safety, and local governance. Unlike India's Concurrent List, the US Constitution avoids overlapping jurisdictions, though implied powers (via the Necessary and Proper Clause) and the Commerce Clause have expanded federal influence over time. The Supremacy Clause (Article VI) [15]ensures federal laws prevail in conflicts, but only within the federal government's constitutional domain.
   
   The historical context of US federalism is rooted in the formation of a federation by 13 independent colonies seeking to balance collective security with state autonomy.
   
   The Articles of Confederation (1781–1789)[16], the US's first governing framework, proved too weak, prompting the Constitutional Convention of 1787 to create a stronger federal government while preserving state powers. This bottom-up approach contrasts with India's top-down federalism, as US states pre existed the federal government and voluntarily ceded limited powers.
   
   Historical debates between Federalists, who favored a strong center, and Anti-Federalists, who championed state sovereignty, shaped a federal system that prioritizes checks and balances, with states acting as counterweights to federal overreach. Landmark Supreme Court cases, such as McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) and Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), have clarified the boundaries of federal and state powers, reinforcing the federal system's dual sovereignty.
    
3. Key Differences
   The differences between Indian and US federalism are stark, reflecting their distinct constitutional designs and historical trajectories. First, India's top-down federalism contrasts with the US's bottom-up approach. In India, the Union created the states through constitutional provisions and reorganization acts (e.g., States Reorganisation Act, 1956[17]), giving the center authority to alter state boundaries (Article 3). In the US, states existed as sovereign entities before the federal government, and their boundaries are constitutionally protected, requiring state consent for changes. This structural difference underscores India's centralized federalism versus the US's decentralized model.
   
   Second, citizenship models highlight federal distinctions. India adopts single citizenship, emphasizing national identity and restricting state-level distinctions in rights or privileges. The US, however, recognizes dual citizenship, with individuals holding both national and state citizenship, reflecting the states' independent status. This dual framework allows states to confer distinct rights, such as voting eligibility, reinforcing their autonomy within the federal system.

Third, the constitutional amendment processes reveal contrasting federal philosophies. In India, the Constitution is relatively flexible, requiring a two-thirds majority in Parliament for most amendments (Article 368), with some provisions needing state ratification. This flexibility enables the Union to adapt the federal structure, as seen in amendments expanding central authority.

In the US, amending the Constitution is rigid, requiring a two-thirds majority in Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states (Article V). This process empowers states to veto changes that erode their powers, preserving the federal balance. The US Constitution's rigidity has limited amendments to 27 since 1789, compared to India's over 100 amendments since 1950, highlighting the differing degrees of central control.

These differences-top-down versus bottom-up federalism, single versus dual citizenship, and flexible versus rigid amendment processes-shape how India and the US manage federal-state relations, particularly during emergencies. India's unitary bias facilitates centralized responses, often at the expense of state autonomy, as seen in provisions like Article 356.

The US's emphasis on state sovereignty fosters decentralized governance, with states retaining significant control, even in crises, as evident in responses to events like the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding these distinctions provides a foundation for analyzing how federalism functions under stress, revealing the strengths and challenges of each system in balancing national and regional interests.

Emergency Provisions In India And The US

Emergencies test the resilience of federal systems, revealing how central and subnational governments balance authority under crisis conditions. In India and the United States, federalism operates within distinct constitutional and statutory frameworks that shape their responses to emergencies. India's Constitution explicitly outlines emergency provisions, enabling significant centralization, while the US relies on statutory laws and executive actions within a framework that preserves state autonomy.

This section examines the emergency frameworks of both nations, their centralization tendencies, historical applications, and a comparative analysis of their approaches, highlighting India's unitary shift during crises and the US's cooperative federalism.

1. India's Emergency Framework
   India's Constitution provides a robust framework for managing emergencies, reflecting its quasi-federal structure with a unitary bias. Three key provisions-Articles 352, 356, and 360-empower the Union government to assume extensive control during crises, often at the expense of state autonomy. These provisions, rooted in the need for national unity post-independence, enable the center to override federal principles when faced with threats to security, governance, or financial stability.
   
   Article 352 authorizes the declaration of a National Emergency [18]in cases of war, external aggression, or armed rebellion. During such an emergency, the Union Parliament can legislate on State List subjects, fundamental rights may be suspended (Article 359), and the center can issue directives to states, effectively transforming India's federal structure into a unitary one.
   
   Article 356, commonly known as President's Rule[19], allows the Union to dissolve a state government if it fails to function in accordance with the Constitution, placing the state under direct central control. Article 360 addresses financial emergencies[20], enabling the Union to issue financial directives to states and assume control over fiscal matters. These provisions grant the Union sweeping powers, with residuary authority further reinforcing central dominance.
   
   Centralization during emergencies is a hallmark of India's framework. When a National Emergency is declared, Article 250 empowers the Union Parliament [21]to legislate on State List subjects, overriding state legislatures. Additionally, Article 357 allows the Parliament to delegate legislative powers to the President, who can enact laws for states under emergency conditions.
   
   This centralization is compounded by the Union's ability to issue executive directions (Article 256), ensuring state compliance. The judiciary's role is limited during emergencies, as fundamental rights can be suspended, reducing checks on central authority. This framework reflects India's constitutional design, which prioritizes national cohesion over state autonomy in times of crisis.
   
   Historical examples illustrate this centralizing tendency. The 1975 National Emergency, declared by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi citing "internal disturbance," is a prominent case. The central government suspended fundamental rights, censored the press, and arrested opposition leaders, while state governments were pressured to align with Union directives. This period saw extensive use of Article 356, with President's Rule imposed in several states, undermining federal principles.
   
   Another example is the COVID-19 response in 2020, where the Union invoked the Disaster Management Act, 2005, to impose a nationwide lockdown, directing states to follow centralized guidelines. While states managed local implementation, key decisions-such as lockdowns and resource allocation-were driven by the Union, highlighting the center's dominance. These instances underscore how India's emergency provisions facilitate a unitary shift, often marginalizing state autonomy.
    
2. US Emergency Framework
   The US Constitution lacks explicit emergency provisions, reflecting its commitment to federalism and limited central authority. Instead, the federal government relies on statutory laws, executive actions, and its enumerated powers to address crises, while states retain significant autonomy under the Tenth Amendment. This decentralized approach aligns with the US's bottom-up federal structure, where states hold residual powers and act as primary responders in many emergencies.
   
   The National Emergencies Act of 1976 is a key statutory framework, allowing the President to declare national emergencies and access specific powers granted by Congress. These powers, however, are confined to the federal government's enumerated domains, such as defense, commerce, and foreign affairs (Article I, Section 8). Other statutes, like the Stafford Act, enable federal assistance in disasters, but implementation often depends on state requests.
   
   Executive actions, such as executive orders or presidential proclamations, also play a role, but their scope is limited by constitutional checks, including judicial review and congressional oversight. The absence of constitutional emergency provisions ensures that federal authority does not automatically expand during crises, preserving the federal-state balance.
   
   The federal government's role in emergencies is restricted to its enumerated powers, requiring cooperation with states to address broader issues like public health or economic crises. For instance, the Commerce Clause allows federal regulation of interstate activities, while the Spending Clause enables financial assistance to states. Agencies like the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)[22] and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) [23]coordinate federal responses, but states retain primary authority over areas like public health, policing, and education.
   
   This cooperative federalism model emphasizes negotiation and collaboration, with states often leading crisis responses.
   Historical examples highlight this decentralized approach. During the Civil War (1861–1865), President Lincoln exercised extraordinary powers, such as suspending habeas corpus, but relied on congressional authorization and faced judicial scrutiny (Ex parte Merryman, 1861[24]). The Great Depression (1929–1939) saw expanded federal intervention through New Deal programs, but these operated within constitutional limits, with states implementing many initiatives.
   
   The COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2021) further exemplified state-led responses, as governors issued stay-at-home orders and managed public health measures, while the federal government provided funding, vaccines, and guidance through the CDC and FEMA. The absence of a national lockdown underscored state autonomy, though it led to coordination challenges and varying outcomes across states.
    
3. Comparative Analysis
   India and the US adopt contrasting approaches to emergencies, rooted in their federal designs. India's explicit constitutional mechanisms-Articles 352, 356, and 360-provide a clear legal basis for centralization, enabling the Union to assume control over state functions. These provisions, designed to address India's diverse and volatile post-independence context, prioritize national unity, often at the cost of federal principles.
   
   In contrast, the US's reliance on statutory and executive actions reflects its commitment to limited federal power. The National Emergencies Act and other laws grant the President emergency powers, but these are constrained by constitutional checks and state sovereignty, fostering a cooperative rather than coercive federal-state relationship.
   
   The degree of centralization further distinguishes the two systems. India's emergency framework facilitates a unitary shift, with the Union overriding state powers through legislative and executive mechanisms. The 1975 Emergency and COVID-19 response demonstrate how the center can dominate governance, with states relegated to implementing Union directives.

In the US, cooperative federalism prevails, as seen in the COVID-19 pandemic, where states led responses while the federal government provided support. This decentralized approach preserves state autonomy but can result in inconsistent policies, as states vary in capacity and priorities. India's unitary shift ensures uniformity but risks over-centralization, while the US's cooperative model promotes flexibility but may hinder national cohesion.

Judicial roles also differ. In India, judicial oversight during emergencies is limited, as fundamental rights can be suspended, though post-emergency rulings (Minerva Mills v. Union of India, 1980) [25]have curbed misuse of powers. In the US, the judiciary actively checks federal overreach, as seen in cases like Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), [26]which limited presidential authority. These differences reflect India's centralized emergency framework versus the US's balanced federalism, with implications for governance in diverse democracies facing crises.

Case Studies: Federalism During Emergencies

Examining specific emergencies in India and the US provides concrete insights into how their federal systems function under stress. India's 1975 National Emergency and the US's COVID-19 pandemic response (2020–2021) highlight the contrasting dynamics of centralization and state autonomy, shaped by constitutional frameworks and historical contexts. These case studies, followed by an analysis of challenges and opportunities, illuminate the strengths and weaknesses of each system.

1. India: The 1975 National Emergency
   Context: The 1975 National Emergency, declared by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, was a defining moment in India's federal history. Triggered by political instability, including opposition protests and a judicial ruling against Gandhi's election (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain, 1975)[27], the emergency was proclaimed under Article 352, citing "internal disturbance."
   
   This period, lasting until 1977, tested India's quasi-federal structure, as the Union government leveraged constitutional provisions to consolidate power.
   
   Impact: The emergency significantly centralized authority, undermining federal principles. Fundamental rights were suspended under Article 359, restricting judicial remedies for rights violations. The Union invoked Article 356 extensively, imposing President's Rule in states like Gujarat and Tamil Nadu, dissolving opposition-led state governments. The Union Parliament legislated on State List subjects (Article 250), and executive directives curtailed state autonomy.
   
   Press censorship and mass arrests of political opponents further consolidated central control, transforming India's federal framework into a unitary system. States became subordinate to Union mandates, with governors-appointed by the center-acting as central agents in state administration.
   
   Outcome: The 1975 Emergency reinforced India's unitary bias, exposing the fragility of state autonomy during crises. The misuse of Article 356, with President's Rule imposed 21 times between 1975 and 1977, highlighted the Constitution's centralizing tendencies.
   
   Post-emergency, the 44th Amendment (1978) [28]curtailed emergency powers, requiring parliamentary approval for Article 352 declarations and limiting "internal disturbance" as a trigger. Judicial scrutiny intensified, with cases like Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) reinforcing constitutional checks on central authority. The emergency spurred debates on federalism, prompting calls for stronger state protections, though the unitary framework persisted.
    
2. US: The COVID-19 Pandemic (2020–2021)
   Context: The COVID-19 pandemic, a global public health crisis, challenged US federalism's decentralized structure. With no explicit constitutional emergency provisions, the US response relied on statutory frameworks like the Stafford Act and the Public Health Service Act. Unlike India's national lockdown, the US avoided a centralized mandate, reflecting its commitment to state sovereignty. The pandemic tested federal-state coordination amid a polarized political climate.
   
   Impact: States led the pandemic response, exercising their police powers over public health. Governors issued stay-at-home orders, mask mandates, and business closures, with significant variation across states-New York imposed strict measures, while Florida adopted a lighter approach. The federal government, under the Trump administration, played a supportive role, coordinating through the CDC, which issued guidelines, and FEMA, which distributed supplies. The CARES Act (2020) [29]provided federal funding, but states controlled implementation.
   
   This decentralized approach highlighted state autonomy but led to inconsistencies, such as delayed testing and uneven vaccine distribution. Federal-state tensions arose, notably when states competed for resources like ventilators, underscoring coordination challenges.
   
   Outcome: The pandemic response emphasized the US's commitment to state autonomy, with governors acting as primary decision-makers. However, it exposed weaknesses in federal-state coordination, as the lack of a unified strategy led to disparities in outcomes. States with robust capacities, like California, fared better than others, highlighting inequalities.
   
   The judiciary largely upheld state powers, with cases like South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom (2020)[30] affirming governors' emergency authority, reflecting judicial restraint. The crisis reinforced the flexibility of US federalism, allowing state experimentation, but also underscored the need for stronger intergovernmental collaboration.
    
3. Comparative Insights
   The 1975 Emergency and COVID-19 pandemic reveal stark contrasts in federalism. India's centralized control, enabled by explicit constitutional provisions, allowed the Union to override state powers, as seen in the suspension of rights and imposition of President's Rule. The US's decentralized approach, rooted in the absence of emergency clauses, empowered states to lead, with the federal government providing support. India's unitary shift ensured uniformity but eroded federal principles, while the US's cooperative federalism preserved autonomy but risked fragmentation.

The judiciary's role further distinguishes the systems. In India, judicial oversight was limited during the emergency, but post-crisis activism, as in Minerva Mills, strengthened federal checks. In the US, courts exercised restraint, upholding state powers during COVID-19, reflecting a commitment to federalism's balance. These differences highlight India's top-down, crisis-driven centralization versus the US's bottom-up, state-centric resilience.

Challenges and Opportunities

1. India
   Challenges: India's emergency framework risks over-centralization, as seen in the 1975 Emergency, where state autonomy was virtually eliminated. The misuse of Article 356, with over 100 instances since 1950, threatens federalism, as central interventions often stem from political motives rather than genuine crises. Erosion of state autonomy undermines regional diversity, fostering resentment in linguistically and culturally distinct states.
   
   Opportunities: Strengthening cooperative federalism offers a path forward. The GST Council, established in 2016, exemplifies collaborative decision-making, requiring consensus between the Union and states. Institutions like the Inter-State Council (Article 263) could be empowered to mediate federal-state disputes, reducing reliance on Article 356. Judicial precedents, such as S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), [31]which limited misuse of President's Rule, provide a foundation for protecting state autonomy.
    
2. US
   Challenges: Coordination issues, evident during COVID-19, hamper effective crisis response, as states' varying capacities lead to uneven outcomes. Disparities in resources-urban states like New York versus rural ones like Wyoming-exacerbate inequalities. Political polarization further complicates federal-state collaboration, as seen in conflicting federal and state messaging during the pandemic.
   
   Opportunities: The US's decentralized federalism allows state experimentation, enabling tailored responses to local needs, as seen in diverse COVID-19 strategies. Robust judicial protection of states' rights, rooted in the Tenth Amendment, ensures federalism's resilience. Intergovernmental bodies like the National Governors Association facilitate dialogue, offering platforms for coordination without central mandates.
    
3. Comparative Lessons
   Both systems face the challenge of balancing national unity with regional autonomy. India's over-centralization risks alienating states, while the US's decentralization can lead to fragmentation. Intergovernmental institutions-India's Inter-State Council and the US's National Governors Association-offer mechanisms for collaboration, promoting cooperative federalism.
   
   The judiciary's role is critical: India's post-emergency activism contrasts with US restraint, suggesting a need for balanced oversight. These lessons underscore the importance of flexible federal systems that adapt to crises while preserving regional voices, with implications for governance in diverse democracies.

Conclusion

1. Summary
   The comparative study of Indian and US federalism during emergencies reveals profound differences in their approaches, rooted in constitutional design, historical context, and governance philosophies. India's quasi-federal system, characterized by a unitary bias, facilitates centralized control during crises, as evidenced by the 1975 National Emergency and the COVID-19 response.
   
   Constitutional provisions like Articles 352 and 356 enable the Union to override state powers, transforming the federal structure into a unitary one. In contrast, the US's purer federalism, built on state sovereignty, preserves decentralized governance, as seen in the state-led COVID-19 response, with the federal government confined to enumerated powers and statutory mechanisms like the National Emergencies Act.
   
   India's top-down approach ensures uniformity but risks eroding state autonomy, while the US's bottom-up model fosters flexibility but faces coordination challenges. Judicial roles further distinguish the systems: India's post-emergency activism, exemplified by cases like Minerva Mills, contrasts with US judicial restraint, as seen in COVID-19-related rulings.
   
   
2. Implications
   These findings offer insights for federal governance in diverse democracies. India's centralized emergency framework highlights the need for mechanisms to protect state autonomy, ensuring national unity does not suppress regional diversity. The US's decentralized approach underscores the value of state experimentation but reveals the necessity for stronger federal-state coordination to address national crises effectively.
   
   Both systems demonstrate federalism's adaptability, balancing competing demands of cohesion and autonomy, with lessons applicable to pluralistic societies navigating modern challenges like pandemics or climate crises. The study also emphasizes the judiciary's role in safeguarding federal principles, whether through proactive oversight in India or restrained deference in the US.
   
   
3. Recommendations
   For India, reforms should focus on curbing the misuse of Article 356, strengthening institutions like the Inter-State Council to foster cooperative federalism, and enhancing judicial checks during emergencies to protect state rights. The GST Council's collaborative model could be extended to other domains, promoting federal-state partnership.
   
   For the US, improving intergovernmental coordination through bodies like the National Governors Association and addressing disparities in state capacities via federal funding can enhance crisis responses. Both nations could benefit from clear legal frameworks for non-traditional emergencies, such as climate disasters, to balance central and regional roles.
   
   
4. Future Research
   Future studies should explore federalism's role in emerging crises, such as climate change or cybersecurity threats, where traditional emergency frameworks may be inadequate. Comparative analyses of other federal systems, like Canada or Australia, could provide additional perspectives on balancing centralization and autonomy. Investigating the impact of digital governance and intergovernmental institutions on federal resilience could further enrich the discourse, offering strategies for diverse democracies to navigate an increasingly complex global landscape

End Notes:

1. US Constitution, under Article I, Section 8, and the Tenth Amendment
2. Articles 352 (National Emergency), 356 (President's Rule), and 360 (Financial Emergency)
3. 1975 National Emergency
4. National Emergencies Act of 1976
5. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
6. Articles 352 (National Emergency) and 356 (President's Rule)
7. National Emergency. Joshi (2023)
8. Union's invocation of the Disaster Management Act, 2005
9. National Emergencies Act of 1976
10. Congressional Research Service (2021)
11. Pentecostal Church v. Newsom (2020)
12. The Government of India Act, 1935
13. US federalism is defined by Article I, Section 8
14. The Supremacy Clause (Article VI)
15. Articles of Confederation (1781–1789)
16. States Reorganisation Act, 1956
17. Article 352, Indian Constitution
18. Article 356, Indian Constitution
19. Article 360 addresses financial emergencies
20. Article 250 empowers the Union Parliament
21. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
22. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
23. Ex parte Merryman (1861)
24. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
25. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)
26. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain (1975)
27. The 44th Amendment (1978)
28. The CARES Act (2020)
29. South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom (2020)
30. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)