Position of Minor's Agreement

 

The distribution of legislative powers within a federal constitution, such as that of India, holds paramount significance in balancing authority between the Union and the States. In the Indian Constitution, this territorial and topical division of powers is structured with the intent to prevent conflicts and ensure efficient governance while maintaining the sovereignty of the states. The Constitution of India establishes a dual polity, meaning power is divided between the Union and the states, and delineates the powers, duties, and responsibilities of each level of government.

The Constitutional Basis for Distribution of Powers

The division of legislative powers in India is primarily addressed in Part XI of the Constitution, specifically in Articles 245 to 255. Article 245 grants the Union Parliament the power to legislate for the whole or any part of the territory of India, while the State Legislature can legislate for the entire or any part of the state territory. This creates a clear distinction in territorial jurisdiction, confining the scope of state legislations to their respective states and granting the Union an overarching authority.

Article 246 further specifies the division of powers through three lists in the Seventh Schedule: the Union List, the State List, and the Concurrent List. Each of these lists delineates the scope of legislative authority granted to the Union and State Legislatures, and these are as follows:

Union List (List I): Contains subjects that are of national significance and require uniform laws across the nation. Only Parliament has the exclusive right to legislate on the topics listed here. These subjects include defense, foreign affairs, banking, atomic energy, etc. Presently, there are 97 items in this list.

State List (List II): Consists of subjects of local or regional importance, on which only the State Legislatures can legislate. This includes areas like police, public health, agriculture, and local government. Currently, this list contains 61 items.

Concurrent List (List III): Contains subjects where both the Union and State Legislatures can legislate. In case of a conflict, however, Union law prevails under Article 254. The Concurrent List includes topics like criminal law, marriage, bankruptcy, and education, with 47 items listed.

The Doctrine of Territorial Nexus

Under Article 245(2), laws passed by Parliament cannot be invalidated merely because they have extraterritorial effects, provided there is a sufficient nexus with India. The Supreme Court of India in A.H. Wadia v. Income Tax Commissioner, Bombay (1949) upheld the extraterritorial jurisdiction of Parliament as long as the legislation has a real nexus to India. This doctrine maintains a balance between the territoriality principle and the need for Parliament to legislate on extraterritorial matters that have an impact on the nation’s interests.

Principles Governing the Distribution of Powers

The framers of the Indian Constitution were deeply influenced by federal principles in structuring the division of powers. However, India’s federalism has unique features due to its quasi-federal nature, which leans towards centralization in certain circumstances. This is often evident in the following constitutional principles:

• Predominance of the Union List: Union’s legislative powers on matters of national interest are placed above the State’s legislative powers. The Constitution thereby grants more substantial powers to Parliament than to State Legislatures.
• Residuary Powers: In contrast to many federal constitutions, where residuary powers are often vested with the states, Article 248 of the Indian Constitution vests these powers with Parliament. This includes any subject not covered in any of the three lists, as clarified in Union of India v. H.S. Dhillon (1972).
• Emergency Provisions: Articles 352, 356, and 360 further reflect the centralizing tendencies of the Indian Constitution. During emergencies, the distribution of powers between the Union and States can shift, allowing the Union to exercise control over state subjects temporarily. In State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977), the Supreme Court upheld that the Union can assume powers of the states under the President’s Rule.

Judicial Interpretation and Case Laws

The judiciary plays a critical role in interpreting the division of powers and resolving conflicts between Union and State legislation. The courts often use doctrines like “pith and substance” and “repugnancy” to settle disputes on legislative jurisdiction.

• Pith and Substance Doctrine: The essence of this doctrine is that if a legislation is primarily within the competence of the legislature that enacted it, incidental encroachment on the other list’s domain does not make it invalid. This doctrine was elucidated in State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara (1951), where the Supreme Court upheld a state law banning alcohol despite incidental encroachment into the Union List.
• Doctrine of Repugnancy: According to Article 254, in cases where both the Union and State laws exist on a concurrent subject and are inconsistent, the Union law prevails. However, if the State law receives Presidential assent, it will prevail in that state. In M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India (1979), the Court clarified that repugnancy arises only when there is a direct conflict, and both laws cannot operate simultaneously.

Challenges and Conflicts in Distribution of Powers

While the division of powers aims to balance authority, conflicts often arise, especially concerning subjects listed in the Concurrent List. The Constitution’s framers anticipated this and included mechanisms like Presidential assent under Article 254(2) to address conflicts. However, challenges continue to emerge:

• Overlapping Jurisdiction: The overlapping jurisdiction of Union and State laws in the Concurrent List has led to multiple disputes. For instance, the regulation of education has been a source of conflict, with both the Union and States seeking control.
• Expansion of Union Powers: Through amendments and judicial interpretation, the Union’s powers have expanded over time, which critics argue undermines the autonomy of states. A notable instance of this is the inclusion of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) under the 101st Constitutional Amendment, which brought a significant portion of state revenue collection under the Union’s jurisdiction.
• Impact of Centralizing Trends: The recent trend towards centralizing powers through policy changes and legislative amendments has sparked debates about India’s federal nature. The abrogation of Article 370 and reorganization of Jammu and Kashmir, where the Union assumed greater control, is a recent example.

Conclusion

The distribution of legislative powers in India has successfully established a framework for federal governance. By delineating powers across the Union, State, and Concurrent Lists, the Constitution seeks to ensure harmony and cooperation between the Union and the states. However, challenges persist, especially regarding overlapping jurisdictions and the expanding scope of Union authority. Through judicial interpretation and legislative amendments, the division of powers in India has evolved to accommodate changing socio-political needs, but it continues to face tensions that test the flexibility and adaptability of India’s federal structure. The balance between unity and diversity, centralization, and decentralization remains a dynamic process, demonstrating the resilience and robustness of India’s constitutional framework.