The power of Parliament to legislate on matters that typically fall within the jurisdiction of state legislatures under India's federal structure is a nuanced and constitutionally delineated authority. This authority is governed by the Indian Constitution, specifically under Articles 246, 249, 250, 252, 253, and 254, which provide a comprehensive framework outlining when and how Parliament can enact laws on matters listed in the State List under the Seventh Schedule. These provisions reflect the Constitution’s flexible approach to federalism, allowing central intervention when national interests require it while preserving state autonomy in regular circumstances.
Division of Legislative Powers
The Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution classifies subjects of legislation into three lists: Union, State, and Concurrent. Article 246 vests the Parliament with the exclusive power to legislate on subjects in the Union List (List I), while states have exclusive powers over the State List (List II). Both Parliament and state legislatures can legislate on subjects in the Concurrent List (List III), where, in case of a conflict, Parliament's law prevails, as per Article 254. However, several provisions empower Parliament to legislate on State List subjects under specific conditions, thereby enabling a certain degree of flexibility in India's quasi-federal structure.
Parliament’s Power Under Article 249: National Interest
Article 249 allows Parliament to legislate on matters in the State List if the Rajya Sabha passes a resolution by a two-thirds majority that it is necessary in the "national interest" for Parliament to do so. This resolution grants Parliament the power to legislate on a state subject for a maximum period of one year, which can be extended by subsequent resolutions. The rationale behind Article 249 is the need for legislative intervention by the central government when issues transcend regional boundaries and require a uniform approach.
In the case of State of Bihar v. Sir Kameshwar Singh (1952), the Supreme Court upheld Parliament’s intervention under Article 249, emphasizing that issues affecting multiple states or national security warrant central legislative oversight. This case highlighted the principle of national interest as a valid ground for Parliament's exercise of power over state matters, as long as due procedural requirements are met.
Emergency Situations: Article 250
Under Article 250, during a national emergency declared under Article 352, Parliament can legislate on any matter in the State List. This power is applicable only while the emergency is in effect and extends for six months beyond its cessation. Article 250 reflects the notion that extraordinary circumstances justify temporary centralization to maintain stability, security, and public order across the nation.
The application of this provision was observed during the 1975 Emergency, when Parliament enacted laws affecting state subjects to manage internal disturbances. The courts have supported Parliament’s authority in such situations, recognizing that emergency provisions allow flexibility essential for responding effectively to crises.
Agreement Between States: Article 252
Article 252 allows Parliament to legislate on state matters at the request of two or more states if they consent through their respective legislatures. In such cases, Parliament's law applies only to consenting states, though other states may later choose to adopt the same law. This provision facilitates uniformity in legislation across multiple states while respecting the federal structure by requiring states’ consent.
A notable application of Article 252 was the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, enacted after several states requested a uniform water pollution law. The law, initially applicable only to consenting states, eventually extended across India, demonstrating how Article 252 can achieve legislative uniformity without imposing central will on non-consenting states.
Implementation of International Agreements: Article 253
Article 253 empowers Parliament to legislate on any subject, including those in the State List, to implement international agreements, treaties, or conventions. This provision reinforces India’s commitment to fulfilling international obligations, permitting Parliament to enact necessary laws irrespective of federal restrictions on state autonomy.
In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Supreme Court emphasized Parliament’s role in implementing international conventions, asserting that such obligations require legislative measures, even if they pertain to state subjects. Although Article 253 was not directly applied in this case, the judiciary highlighted its role in facilitating compliance with international standards, supporting Parliament's ability to ensure India meets its global commitments.
Doctrine of Repugnancy: Article 254
Article 254 addresses conflicts between Central and State laws on subjects within the Concurrent List. In cases of inconsistency, the central law prevails. However, Article 254(2) allows a state law inconsistent with an existing central law to prevail within that state if it receives the President’s assent. This provision respects state autonomy by enabling states to tailor legislation to local needs, yet safeguards national unity by ensuring federal law's supremacy in cases of unresolved conflicts.
The landmark case of State of Kerala v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing (Weaving) Co. Ltd. (1973) illustrated the application of Article 254. The Supreme Court held that Kerala's law, conflicting with a central statute, was invalid without presidential assent. This decision reinforced the precedence of central legislation on Concurrent List matters, highlighting the primacy of federal law in maintaining legislative coherence across states.
Residual Powers of the Union
Article 248 grants Parliament residuary powers to legislate on subjects not explicitly mentioned in any of the three lists, reflecting a unitary tilt in the Constitution. The Constitution framers envisioned a strong central authority capable of addressing unforeseen matters. The residual power, therefore, serves as a safety net to ensure comprehensive legislative coverage in the Union’s favor.
In Union of India v. H.S. Dhillon (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that any subject not enumerated in the Seventh Schedule automatically falls under Parliament's jurisdiction due to its residual powers. The ruling emphasized that states hold no jurisdiction over residual subjects, underscoring the central government’s supremacy in unforeseen legislative fields.
Judicial Review and Parliamentary Power
The judiciary has consistently upheld the constitutional limits of Parliament’s power to legislate on state subjects, maintaining that procedural requirements are essential for any extension of central legislative power. In A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982), the Supreme Court reiterated that Parliament must strictly adhere to procedural formalities under Articles 249 and 252 when legislating on state matters, thereby protecting federal principles and curbing potential central overreach.
Conclusion
The power of Parliament to legislate on state matters reflects a balanced constitutional approach that respects India’s federal structure while ensuring national cohesion. Provisions such as Articles 249, 250, 252, and 253 allow Parliament to address state issues when national interest, emergency, inter-state agreement, or international obligations necessitate uniform legislation. Through landmark cases, the judiciary has interpreted these provisions to uphold the balance between central authority and state autonomy. The Indian Constitution, through its flexible federalism, thus enables the Parliament to meet national and global challenges without undermining the essence of state sovereignty.
.png)
.png)
.png)
