Like the dispute regarding the form of Indian political system, these has been more dispute regarding its federal form and this dispute has been continuing since 1950. The main point of the dispute is whether it is federal or not. K.C. Wheare, constitutional expert has been considered as the father of this dispute. It is because he called, “Indian federalism is Quasi-federal.” The aspects which have emerged about it, can be divided into two categories :

1. Legal and institutional aspect. 

2. Practical aspect. 

Our constitution is federal, though there may be difference of opinion regarding the extent of federalism. Just as K.C. Wheare considered it “Quasi-federal”. Granville Austin has called it, “A cooperative federalism”. Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar himself refused to consider it a strictly federal structure. Morris Jones considered it a “federalism of bargain.” But it is true that Indian federalism is not pure federalism in principle, and within different distinguished pluralistic forces, it has been vested with the unitary powers. The centre has been made powerful. In all the areas like Legislative, Executive,Judiciary, and Emergency, the centre has been provided with the final and decisive role.

Practical Aspect : 

Practical aspect has rapidly taken the place of the traditional aspect. The main concern of the experts belonging to the practical aspect, has become the study of power: relations between the centre and the states. These experts study federalism keeping in mind its practical aspect. Morris Jones and Ashok Chanda, etc. have done practical study of Indian federal system specifically in the context of planning. Their opinion is that as a result of planning, in India not only its federal system has come to an end but also its parliamentary system seems to have disappeared. Hence, the outlook of the constitution makers was certainly to establish a federal structure but it also has to be accepted that the constitution also has strong unitary features.