The distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States is a fundamental aspect of federalism in the Indian Constitution, shaping the balance between central authority and state autonomy. This framework, outlined in Part XI of the Constitution (Articles 245 to 255), divides the authority to legislate on various matters, aiming to preserve the unity of India while respecting regional diversity. This essay delves into the division of legislative powers, examining the relevant provisions, schedules, and case laws that underscore this balance.
Constitutional Framework and Three Lists
Article 245 of the Constitution delineates the powers of the Union and State legislatures. It grants the Parliament the authority to make laws for the entire country or any part thereof, while State legislatures can legislate for their respective states. This power is operationalized through the Seventh Schedule, which divides subjects into three lists:
Union List: Consists of subjects on which only the Parliament can legislate, such as defense, foreign affairs, atomic energy, and currency. Matters of national importance or those requiring uniformity are placed in this list to ensure centralized control and coherence in national policies.
State List: Contains subjects like police, public health, and agriculture, which primarily impact individual states. By granting exclusive legislative authority to the states over these matters, the Constitution acknowledges the need for localized governance and respect for regional autonomy.
Concurrent List: Includes subjects like education, marriage and divorce, bankruptcy, and criminal law, where both the Union and States can legislate. However, in case of a conflict between Union and State laws, the Union law prevails, as stated in Article 254.
Principles of Federal Supremacy and Residuary Powers
Federalism in India is unique because it leans towards centralization, allowing the Union to retain supremacy in legislative matters. The Constitution ensures this through:
Federal Supremacy in Case of Conflicts: Article 254 provides that in the event of a conflict between central and state legislation on a subject in the Concurrent List, the central law prevails unless the state law has received presidential assent.
Residuary Powers: Unlike traditional federations where residuary powers often lie with the states, the Indian Constitution allocates these powers to the Union under Article 248. This provision enables the Parliament to legislate on any matter not enumerated in any of the three lists, thereby further strengthening central authority. In the case Union of India v. H.S. Dhillon (1971), the Supreme Court upheld this aspect of central predominance, ruling that any matter not explicitly covered by the lists falls within Parliament's jurisdiction.
Special Provisions and the Role of the Judiciary
The Constitution provides for special legislative powers to manage extraordinary situations:
- Parliament’s Power to Legislate on State List Subjects: Under certain circumstances, Parliament can legislate on matters in the State List. For instance, Article 249 allows Parliament to legislate on a State List subject if the Rajya Sabha declares by a two-thirds majority that it is in the national interest. This clause was effectively applied during the nationalization of certain industries deemed crucial for national development.
- During Proclamation of Emergency: Article 250 grants Parliament the power to legislate on State List subjects when a national emergency is in effect. This provision was tested during the Emergency period (1975-1977), underscoring Parliament's control over state matters in exceptional times.
- President’s Rule: Under Article 356, if a state government cannot function per constitutional provisions, the President can assume control, empowering Parliament to legislate on any State List matter for that state.
The judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, plays a pivotal role in interpreting and safeguarding the distribution of legislative powers. In State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1963), the Court affirmed the sovereignty of Parliament over matters of national interest, ruling that the Union can legislate on subjects of vital importance even if they infringe on state powers. Similarly, in Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977), the Supreme Court underscored that federalism in India does not imply a rigid separation but a cooperative structure where the Union can intervene in state matters to ensure national coherence.
Doctrine of Pith and Substance
The doctrine of "pith and substance" allows the judiciary to determine the true nature of a law if there is a conflict over legislative competence. This principle states that if a legislature is within its domain in substance, incidental encroachments on another list will not invalidate the law. In State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara (1951), the Supreme Court upheld this doctrine, enabling both Union and State legislatures to address subjects without rigid compartmentalization, thus accommodating overlapping interests.
Doctrine of Colorable Legislation
The doctrine of colorable legislation prevents legislatures from overstepping their authority by enacting laws disguised under another category. If the legislature enacts a law on a subject it is not authorized to legislate on, the judiciary can deem it unconstitutional. In K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa (1953), the Supreme Court clarified that the legislature cannot bypass constitutional limits under a pretense, ensuring that legislative powers are exercised within the constitutionally prescribed framework.
Cooperative Federalism and Recent Developments
While the Constitution centralizes certain legislative powers, recent trends indicate a shift towards cooperative federalism. The Goods and Services Tax (GST), introduced through the 101st Constitutional Amendment, is an example of this. By establishing a concurrent taxation mechanism for the Union and States, the GST regime showcases collaborative lawmaking and harmonizes tax policies across the country.
The judiciary has continued to uphold cooperative federalism in landmark cases like State (NCT of Delhi) v. Union of India (2018), where the Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of consultation and cooperation between the Union and state governments. The Court held that the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers for matters within the state’s legislative domain, reiterating the balance of power in India's federal structure.
Conclusion
The distribution of legislative powers in India is structured to balance the dual needs of a strong Union government and autonomous states, making it a unique model of federalism tailored to India's socio-political diversity. The Constitution's adaptability, aided by doctrines such as pith and substance and colorable legislation, allows for flexibility in interpreting legislative powers while safeguarding federal principles. Over time, cooperative federalism has gained prominence, encouraging collaboration rather than competition between the Union and the States. By upholding both centralization and state autonomy, the Indian Constitution provides a robust framework that accommodates national unity and regional diversity.
.png)
.png)
.png)
