Revision summary
India’s Constitution is a strong-Centre federation built for unity and integrity. The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, gave executive epidemic powers reused in COVID-19. The Disaster Management Act, 2005, nationalised lockdown command through NDMA and the Union Home Ministry. The 2020 Farm Acts used Union trade and commodities entries to recast State-regulated farm markets. Those farm laws were repealed in 2021; as a 2020 case they still show centralisation meeting federal resistance.
Model answer
Copper italics in this answer — like this — are the key facts. Each one is unpacked in the Facts & figures rail.
Introduction
- The Constitution is a Union of States with a strong Centre: a long Union List, All-India Services, Articles 352–360, and residuary power. Unity and integrity are the stated reasons. The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, the Disaster Management Act, 2005, and the Farm Acts of 2020 show how that centralising habit works in a health emergency and in the farm market — and where States push back.
Body
Centralising design in the Constitution
- Federal in a dual-polity sense, India is not a league of sovereign States: single citizenship, unified judiciary, and Article 3 on State boundaries already tilt to the Union.
- Emergency provisions, the GST Council’s Union vote-weight, and Centrally Sponsored Schemes continue that tilt in ordinary times.
- The 2020 examples are statutes, not amendments, which is how centralisation often arrives: Union legislation on a crisis or on a claimed national market.
Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897
- A colonial public-health statute, it lets a government take special measures and prescribe regulations to prevent the spread of a dangerous epidemic disease.
- In COVID-19 the Union and States used it, with the 2020 ordinance against violence on healthcare workers, as a quick legal peg beside the newer disaster law.
- Centralising tendency: a thin, executive-heavy Act, born to protect imperial ports and troops, still lets a distant government regulate bodies and movement with limited legislative debate.
- Unity rationale: a virus does not stop at a State border; a national frame reduces beggar-thy-neighbour lockdowns.
- Limit: public health is largely a State subject; 1897 does not by itself create a modern rights-based health federalism.
Disaster Management Act, 2005
- The Act builds NDMA, SDMAs, and a chain of plans; Section 6 and the Union Home Ministry’s COVID-19 guidelines turned a disaster statute into a national lockdown instrument from 24 March 2020.
- Migrant-worker distress showed that a Centre-written lockdown without matching State fiscal and shelter capacity is centralisation without capacity.
- Unity rationale: one definition of disaster, one national executive for earthquakes, cyclones, and a pandemic classified as a disaster.
- Federal tension: States ran hospitals and police; they often received instructions more than a co-authored plan, which is the DM Act’s Union-nodal design under stress.
Farm Acts, 2020
- Three Union laws: Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act; Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act; Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act.
- The Union placed them on trade, commerce, and essential commodities — Union and Concurrent entries — while agriculture and markets are the States’ daily field; Punjab and others answered with their own Acts and protests.
- Centralising tendency: a national ‘one nation, one market’ claim over APMC-era State regulation, justified as farmer freedom and integrity of the internal market.
- These Acts were repealed in November 2021 after sustained protest. For a 2020 paper they still illustrate the tendency: the Union legislated first; politics forced a retreat later.
- Unity rationale in 2020 Union speech: fragmented mandi law blocked a national agricultural market. Integrity cost: deep agrarian regions read the package as an attack on MSP and federal compact.
Reading the three together
- Crisis statutes (1897, 2005) centralise in the name of life and order; farm statutes centralised in the name of a national market.
- Both uses fit the Constitution’s Union-heavy map; both need State machines to work.
- Elucidation is not endorsement: unity is a constitutional value (Preamble, Article 19 restrictions, duties), but so is a federal distribution that keeps agriculture and public health politically close to the citizen.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD C[Constitutional Union tilt] --> E[Epidemic Diseases Act 1897] C --> D[DM Act 2005 COVID lockdown] C --> F[Farm Acts 2020] E --> U[Unity and integrity claim] D[D] --> U[U] F --> P[State protest and 2021 repeal]
Conclusion
The Constitution’s centralising tendencies — Union lists, crisis executives, and national-market legislation — were on display in the Epidemic Diseases Act, the DM Act’s COVID-19 use, and the 2020 Farm Acts. Those tools can serve unity in a pandemic; the farm package showed that the same habit can strain integrity when States and farmers withhold consent. The Acts of 2020 were repealed in 2021; the constitutional tilt they revealed remains.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Which steps are required for constitutionalization of a commission? Do you think imparting constitutionality to the National Commission for Women would ensure greater gender justice and empowerment in India? Give reasons.
Next question on this syllabus topic (2020 · Q15). View answer →
-
Were the Farm Acts still law when later answers were written?
They were law in 2020 and repealed in 2021. Analysis for this paper treats them as the ‘recently passed’ package the stem named, and records the repeal.
-
Is public health a Union subject?
Public health and sanitation are largely a State List field. Epidemic and disaster statutes are how the Union still frames a national health emergency.
Same topic · past papers
UPSC has asked this before
These previous-year questions sit on the same topic. Open one to practise the earlier ask.
More from this topic
Q17 · UPSC Mains 2026 · GS II · 15 marks · Solution
Can the constitutional mandate of rights-based welfare be effectively realised in the context of non-integrated governance and minimal public investment? Examine.
Indian Constitution
• India’s constitutional welfare mandate struggles due to fragmented administrative silos and low public spending. • Siloed departmental functioning causes duplication, exclusion errors, and severe frontline administrative overload. • Suboptimal public investment in health and education forces heavy reliance on profit-driven private providers. • Fiscal federalism pressures leave financially weaker states unable to co-finance central welfare mandates properly. • Overcoming these bottlenecks requires a whole-of-government approach using unified digital platforms for convergence. • Progressively increasing public expenditure on core social infrastructure is vital to meet statutory entitlements. • Strengthening social audits and grievance redressal ensures legal rights translate into tangible grassroots outcomes.
Q1 · UPSC Mains 2026 · GS II · 10 marks · Solution
Right to privacy relating to self-identity is very dear to every human being and well protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. In this context, examine the effect of the amendment in 2026 to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.
Indian Constitution
• Article 21 protects personal autonomy, bodily integrity, and the right to self-identity as core components of human dignity. • The Supreme Court's *K.S. Puttaswamy* judgment firmly established privacy as a fundamental right encompassing personal choices. • The 2026 amendment to the Transgender Persons Act, 2019, aims to align statutory laws with evolving constitutional jurisprudence. • Key reforms include decentralising identity certification to eliminate bureaucratic delays and arbitrary state interference. • The amendment also strengthens punitive and remedial mechanisms against social and institutional discrimination. • Persistent challenges remain, notably bridging the gap between legal recognition and deep-rooted societal stigma. • True realization of these rights requires continuous administrative sensitization and inclusive access to education, healthcare, and jobs.
Q3 · UPSC Mains 2025 · GS II · 10 marks · Solution
Compare and contrast the President's power to pardon in India and in the USA. Are there any limits to it in both the countries? What are 'preemptive pardons'?
Indian Constitution
Article 72 (and 161) are exercised on aid and advice; Maru Ram, Kehar Singh, Epuru Sudhakar and Shatrughan Chauhan frame Indian limits and delay. The US Article II pardon is personal, federal-only, and barred in impeachment. Judicial review is stronger in India; political cost is the main US brake. A preemptive pardon forgives before conviction, as in Ford–Nixon. India has no working doctrine of preemptive pardon for the untried.