AN IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF LEGISLATIVE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UNION AND THE STATES

This article is written by Harshita of 9th Semester of B.COM LL. B of IMS Law College, Noida, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

ABSTRACT

This research paper offers a comprehensive examination of the intricate legislative relations between the Union and the States within the framework of the Indian Constitution.

The paper explores the extent of laws enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures, establishing the scope of their jurisdiction under Article 245. The paper further dissects the Distribution of Legislative Powers, shedding light on the allocation of subjects among the Union, States, and Concurrent List.

The paper has thoroughly examined the residuary power of legislation vested in the Union government, as elucidated in Article 248. Furthermore, Article 254, which addresses conflicts between laws passed by State Legislatures and the Parliament on concurrent list subjects is an essential aspect of this research paper.

Additionally, the paper also examines various other provisions of the Constitution which provides for the power of the Parliament to legislate with respect to the matters enumerated in the State List in certain situations.

This analysis contributes to the ongoing discourse on federalism in India and offers insights into the resilience of India’s federal structure in the face of evolving challenges and opportunities.

Keywords: Legislative Relations, Federalism, Residuary Powers, Repugnancy, Constitution

INTRODUCTION

The legislative relations between the Union and the States form a cornerstone of India’s federal system of governance. Enshrined in the Constitution of India, these relations delineate the distribution of legislative powers between the central government (Union) and the states, defining the scope and jurisdiction of each in the lawmaking process.

India’s federal structure, often referred to as quasi-federal, empowers both the Union and the States with distinct areas of legislative authority to avoid conflicts and ensure efficient governance. The Constitution, in its Seventh Schedule, categorizes subjects into three lists: the Union List, the State List, and the Concurrent List. Each list specifies the areas in which either the Union or the States have legislative authority.

These legislative relations serve as a delicate balance. It fosters cooperative federalism by allowing both Union and State governments to work together on matters of shared interest while also preserving the autonomy and diversity of individual states. Understanding these dynamics is essential for comprehending India’s unique federal structure and its role in shaping the nation’s governance.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Chapter I of Part XI of the Constitution comprising Article 245 to 255 deals with the legislative relations between the Union and the States. This division of legislative powers is fundamental to India’s federal structure, ensuring a clear demarcation of authority while allowing for cooperation when necessary.

The Seventh schedule of the Indian Constitution, which is divided into three lists: the Union List, the State List, and the Concurrent List outlines the subject matter of legislation between the Union and the States.

The provisions governing these relations are as follows:

1. Extent of Laws: Art. 245 of the Constitution provides for the extent of laws made by Parliament and the Legislatures of States.
2. Subject matter of legislation: It is provided under Art. 246 that the Parliament has exclusive powers over Union List subjects, concurrent powers with State Legislatures over Concurrent List subjects (with its laws prevailing in case of conflict) and State Legislatures have exclusive authority over State List subjects within their respective states.
3. The Residuary powers: Article 248 of the Indian Constitution grants Parliament exclusive authority to legislate on subjects not mentioned in the Concurrent List or State List, known as residuary powers. This includes the power to enact laws related to taxes not explicitly listed in those schedules.
4. Doctrine of repugnancy: It is stipulated under article 254 when there is a conflict between a law enacted by a state legislature and a law passed by the Indian Parliament on a concurrent list subject, the parliamentary law prevails, rendering the state law void to the extent of the inconsistency.
5. Other provisions: There are various other provisions of the Constitution which provides for the power of the Parliament to legislate with respect to a matter in the State List in certain situations including national interest, proclamation of emergency, to legislate for two or more states by consent and legislation for giving effect to international agreements. 

It is clear from the above-mentioned provisions that the Constitution of India establishes a clear framework for legislative relations between the Union and the States, ensuring a balance of power while allowing for flexibility and cooperation when needed.

LEGISLATION WITH RESPECT TO TERRITORIAL EXTENT

The extent of laws made by Parliament and by the Legislatures of States in India is governed by Art. 245 of the Indian Constitution.

Clause 1 of the article provides that subject to the provisions of the Constitution, Parliament may make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India and the Legislature of a State may make laws for the whole or any part of the State, subject to the provisions of the Constitution. It means, the Parliament has the authority to make laws that can apply to the entire country or specific parts as determined by the nature of the legislation and the State legislatures have the authority to make laws for the state that fall within their jurisdiction or any part of it.

Whereas, Clause 2 of the article ensures that no law made by Parliament shall be deemed to be invalid on the ground that it would have extra-territorial operation.

In the GVK Industries Ltd. vs ITO case^[1] The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the Indian Parliament can enact legislation related to extra-territorial aspects or causes only when such matters have a real or expected impact on India, its territory, or its citizens’ interests, welfare, wellbeing, or security. There is no requirement for quantitative tests like “sufficiency” or “significance” of the connection to India, it must simply be real, not illusory. Whether a law satisfies this criterion is a mixed matter of fact and law. However, Parliament cannot legislate for any territory outside India. It has the authority to make laws for the Indian territory and for extra-territorial matters that have a connection with India. Moreover, laws enacted by Parliament that pertain to extra-territorial aspects or causes with no impact or connection to India would be considered ultra vires, meaning beyond its constitutional authority, and would be regarded as laws made “for” a foreign territory.

Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, refers to the fact that the legislative powers of Parliament and State Legislatures are not absolute; they are subject to certain limitations and guidelines set forth in the Constitution of India which are the division of legislative power, fundamental rights and other provisions.

DISTRIBUTION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS

Article 246 of the Indian Constitution outlines the subject-matter of laws made by Parliament and by the Legislatures of States. It allocates three-way distribution of legislative powers according to the lists under Seventh Schedule^[2] which are as follows:

1. Union List

Parliament has exclusive power to make laws on matters enumerated in List I, also known as the Union List. These matters are the exclusive domain of the central government. There are 97 subjects in the union list including defence, foreign affairs, currency, and nuclear energy. State governments cannot legislate on these matters.

2. Concurrent List

Parliament, as well as the State Legislatures (subject to clause 1 of the Article), have the power to make laws on matters enumerated in List III, also known as the Concurrent List. There are 47 subjects in the Concurrent List including education, criminal law, and marriage. This means that both the central and state governments can pass laws on these subjects simultaneously.

3. State List

The State Legislatures have exclusive power to make laws on matters enumerated in List II, also known as the State List consisting of 66 subjects. These matters are primarily related to state-specific issues such as police, public health, and agriculture. The central government cannot legislate on these matters.

4. It is also provided under Art. 246(4) that the Parliament has the power to make laws for any part of the territory of India that is not included within a state’s jurisdiction, even if the subject matter falls within the State List.

This distribution of legislative powers, as outlined in Article 246 and the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, forms a crucial foundation for the federal system of governance in India. It delineates the boundaries of authority between the central government and state governments, ensuring that each level of government has its areas of jurisdiction. It promotes cooperative federalism.

THE RESIDUARY POWERS

The residuary powers are primarily defined under Article 248 and Entry 97 of the Union List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.

Art. 248 vests the Parliament with the exclusive power to make laws on any matter not specifically enumerated in the Concurrent List or State List. This means that if a particular subject matter is not mentioned in either the Concurrent List or the State List, it falls within the exclusive legislative domain of the Parliament. Furthermore, Entry 97 of the Union List in the Seventh Schedule clarifies the scope of the Parliament’s residuary powers. It states that the Parliament has the power to make laws on any subject not covered by List I (Union List), List II (State List), or List III (Concurrent List), including laws imposing taxes not mentioned in any of these lists.

In the case of Union Of India vs H. S. Dhillon^[3] It was held by the Supreme court that Parliament has exclusive power, under Article 248, to legislate on matters not enumerated in List II or List III, including the power to impose taxes not mentioned in those Lists and upheld the validity of The Wealth Tax Act under both entry 86, List I, and entry 97, List I. it also ruled that there is no prohibition on Parliament combining its powers under different entries.

This provision ensures that there are no legislative gaps, allowing Parliament to address matters and taxation issues not specifically assigned to either the Central or State governments.

DOCTRINE OF REPUGNANCY

Article 254(1) provides that if a State law is found to be repugnant to a law passed by the Indian Parliament or to an existing law in the Concurrent List, then the law passed by the Indian Parliament will prevail, and the State law will be considered void to the extent of the repugnancy.

However, there’s an exception to this rule. If a state law, even if it’s inconsistent with a central law or an existing law on a concurrent subject, can still prevail if:

• The state law has been reserved for the consideration of the President of India.
• The President has given their assent to the state law.

In the case of Deep Chand vs. The State of UP^[4] the Supreme Court of India laid down guidelines to determine repugnancy between statutes passed by Parliament and those by State Legislatures: 1) if there is a direct conflict between provisions of the two statutes 2) if Parliament intended to establish an exhaustive code concerning the subject matter, effectively replacing the State Legislature’s Act 3) if both the laws pertain to and occupy the same field or domain of legislation.

The Supreme Court in M. Karunanidhi vs UOI^[5] held that the Indian Constitution establishes a meticulous and balanced distribution of legislative powers between Parliament and State Legislatures. Parliament has exclusive authority over matters listed in List I (Union List), while both Parliament and State Legislatures can legislate on Concurrent List subjects, subject to Art. 254(1) conditions. Matters in List II (State List) are within the exclusive jurisdiction of State Legislatures, with certain exceptions allowing Parliament to intervene under specific circumstances.

Repugnancy between Central and State laws can arise in several situations:

1. The two enactments contain inconsistent and irreconcilable provisions, so that they cannot stand together or operate in the same field.
2. That there can be no repeal by implication unless the inconsistency appears on the face of the two statutes.
3. That where the two statutes occupy a particular field, there is room or possibility of both the statutes operating in the same field without coming into collision with each other, no repugnancy results.
4. That where there is no inconsistency but a statute occupying the same field seeks to create distinct and separate offenses, no question of repugnancy arises and both the statutes continue to operate in the same field.

In the case of Zaverbhai vs State of Bombay, a central law was enacted in 1946 to regulate essential commodities with associated penalties. In 1947, the Bombay legislature increased the penalties through a state law, which received the President’s assent. However, in 1950, Parliament amended the original central law, enhancing penalties further. The Supreme Court ruled that the state law became void as it conflicted with the central law, both concerning increased penalties, and both legislations related to the same subject, making the state law invalid due to repugnancy^[6].

OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

The State List primarily consists of subjects where states have exclusive legislative authority. These subjects are crucial for the functioning of individual states and include areas like police, public health, agriculture, local government, and more. However, there are specific circumstances in which the Indian Parliament can legislate on these state subjects, ensuring a balance between federalism and the need for centralized decision-making in certain situations:

1. National interest: Under art. 249 If the Rajya Sabha passes a resolution, supported by a two-thirds majority, declaring that it’s necessary or expedient in the national interest for Parliament to make laws on a specific matter in the State List, Parliament can do so while the resolution remains in effect. The resolution passed remains in force for a maximum of one year, as specified in the resolution itself. However, it can be extended for another year if a similar resolution is passed. Any law made by Parliament under this provision, becomes invalid six months after the resolution ceases to be in force.
2. Proclamation of emergency: Article 250 of the Constitution deals with the powers of the Parliament of India to legislate on matters in the State List when a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation. It provides to Parliament the authority to legislate on matters listed in the State List, during a Proclamation of Emergency. These laws, created by Parliament during the emergency, are temporary and cease to have effect six months after the emergency has ended.
3. On consent of the States: Article 252, allows the Parliament to legislate on certain matters for two or more states, subject to their consent and adoption by any other state. If the legislatures of two or more states agree that a specific matter should be regulated by a law passed by Parliament, they can pass resolutions to that effect and if resolutions to that effect are passed unanimously by all the houses of those state legislatures, Parliament can enact a law to regulate that matter. It can also be adopted by any other state by passing a resolution to that effect through its own legislature.

Any Act passed by Parliament under this provision can be amended or repealed only by Act of Parliament.

4. Treaties and international agreements: Article 253 empowers the Parliament to make laws necessary for implementing international treaties, agreements, conventions, or decisions from international conferences. This provision bypasses the usual distribution of legislative powers and allows Parliament to ensure India’s compliance with its international obligations. It ensures uniformity and consistency in upholding international commitments throughout the country, even in areas related to any of the subjects mentioned in the State list.
5. Failure of constitutional machinery in a state: Article 356 grants Parliament the power to legislate for a state with respect to all the subjects mentioned in the state list when the Parliament believes that the government in a state is not functioning according to the provisions of the Constitution.

CONCLUSION

The legislative relations between the Union and the States under the Indian Constitution form a complex yet crucial framework for the functioning of the world’s largest democracy. The Constitution of India, through its various provisions, seeks to strike a delicate balance between the powers of the central government and those of the state governments.

This intricate system, with the Union List, State List, and Concurrent List, provides for a clear division of legislative powers. It ensures that both the Union and the States have their respective areas of authority, while also allowing for shared responsibilities in certain matters.

Furthermore, the concept of residuary powers vested in the Union ensures that any legislative gaps are addressed at the national level and the power of Parliament to legislate on State subjects under specific circumstances underscores the need for cooperation and coordination between the Union and the States.

In essence, the legislative relations under the Indian Constitution reflect the principles of federalism, cooperation, and flexibility, promoting a vibrant and diverse democracy that can cater to the needs of its vast and multifaceted population.

REFERENCES

1. Gvk Inds. Ltd & Anr vs The Income Tax Officer & Anr CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7796 Of 1997
2. MEA, https://www.mea.gov.in/Images/pdf1/S7.pdf (Last visited 14 Sep, 2023)
3. Union Of India vs H. S. Dhillon 1972 AIR 1061, 1972 SCR (2) 33
4. Deep Chand vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh 1959 AIR 648, 1959 SCR Supl. (2) 8
5. M. Karunanidhi vs Union Of India 1979 AIR 898 1979 SCR (3) 254
6. Zaverbhai Amaidas vs The State Of Bombay 1954 AIR 752 1955 SCR 799

---

^[1] Gvk Inds. Ltd & Anr vs The Income Tax Officer & Anr CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7796 OF 1997

^[2] MEA, https://www.mea.gov.in/Images/pdf1/S7.pdf (Last visited 14 Sep, 2023)

^[3] Union Of India vs H. S. Dhillon 1972 AIR 1061

^[4] Deep Chand vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh 1959 AIR 648

^[5] M. Karunanidhi vs Union Of India 1979 AIR 898

^[6] Zaverbhai Amaidas vs The State Of Bombay 1954 AIR 752