The Indian Constitution establishes a distinctive federal system, often described as quasi-federal or ‘federal in form but unitary in spirit.’ This unique structure is characterized by a clear division of powers between the Union (Central) government and the State governments, designed to balance the imperative of national unity with the need for regional autonomy. Among these divisions, legislative relations stand as a cornerstone, meticulously delineated in Part XI (Articles 245 to 255) of the Constitution, along with the Seventh Schedule. These provisions lay down the framework for how legislative authority is distributed and exercised, addressing both the territorial extent of laws and the subject matter on which the Centre and States can legislate.

The distribution of legislative powers is not merely a technical allocation of responsibilities but reflects a careful constitutional design aimed at ensuring governance effectiveness across a vast and diverse nation. While the States are granted significant autonomy to legislate on matters of local importance, the Constitution simultaneously vests the Union Parliament with overriding powers in certain circumstances. This centralizing tendency is a deliberate feature, rooted in India’s history, particularly the Partition, which underscored the need for a strong Centre to maintain national cohesion and address emergencies. Understanding this intricate balance, with its inherent flexibilities and safeguards, is crucial to comprehending the dynamics of Indian federalism and the continuous interplay between central authority and state sovereignty.

Territorial Extent of Union and State Legislation

The Indian Constitution clearly demarcates the territorial limits within which the Union Parliament and State Legislatures can make laws. Article 245 is the primary provision governing this aspect, stipulating the geographical reach of legislative competence for both levels of government.

Parliament has the power to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India. This implies that laws enacted by the Parliament can have an effect across the entire nation, regardless of where the cause of action arises or where the persons affected reside. Furthermore, Parliament’s legislative power is not confined solely to the geographical boundaries of India. Article 245(2) explicitly states that no law made by Parliament shall be deemed invalid on the ground that it would have extraterritorial operation. This ‘extraterritorial operation’ allows Parliament to enact laws that apply to Indian citizens and their property even when they are outside Indian territory, or to matters that have a significant nexus with India, such as international transactions, maritime law, or actions by Indian companies abroad. This provision is vital for India’s engagement in the global arena and for regulating the conduct of its Citizenship and entities internationally.

Conversely, a State Legislature has the power to make laws for the whole or any part of the State. The legislative competence of a State is generally confined to its geographical boundaries. This means that a law passed by a State Legislature cannot ordinarily operate beyond the borders of that State. However, an important principle known as the ‘Doctrine of Territorial Nexus’ provides a limited exception to this rule. This doctrine permits a State Legislature to make laws that have an extraterritorial impact if there is a sufficient and real connection (nexus) between the State and the subject matter of the legislation. For instance, a State can levy taxes on income accruing from business connections within the State, even if the income recipient resides outside the State, provided there is a tangible link between the activity and the State’s territory. Similarly, a State might regulate transactions, even those involving non-residents, if a significant part of the transaction or its effects occur within the State. The Supreme Court of India has upheld this doctrine in various judgments, ensuring that State laws are effective while respecting the territorial limitations.

There are also specific constitutional provisions and exceptions that modify these general rules. For example, the President of India has the power to make regulations for certain Union Territories (UTs), such as the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, and Ladakh. These regulations, issued under Article 240, have the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament and can even repeal or amend an Act of Parliament applying to these territories. Similarly, in relation to certain Scheduled Areas and Tribal Areas within States, the Governor or President, as the case may be, has special powers to modify or exclude the application of Central or State laws to ensure the protection of tribal interests and customs. These provisions highlight the constitutional flexibility designed to accommodate the unique administrative and socio-cultural needs of different regions within the Indian Union.

Distribution of Legislative Subjects

The most fundamental aspect of legislative relations between the Centre and States is the meticulous distribution of subjects on which they can legislate. This distribution is primarily enshrined in Article 246 of the Constitution, read in conjunction with the Seventh Schedule, which contains three comprehensive lists: the Union List, the State List, and the Concurrent List.

Union List (List I)

The Union List comprises 97 subjects (originally 97, now 98 entries numerically) on which the Parliament has exclusive power to make laws. These subjects are of national importance, necessitating uniform legislation across the country to maintain national unity, security, and economic stability. Key entries in the Union List include:

  • Defence of India: Including naval, military, and air forces; any other armed forces of the Union.
  • External Affairs: Including implementation of treaties and agreements with other countries.
  • Atomic Energy and Mineral Resources: Crucial for national security and strategic development.
  • Railways, National Highways, Shipping and Navigation, Airways: Essential for national connectivity and infrastructure.
  • Posts and Telegraphs, Telephones, Wireless, Broadcasting: Communication systems vital for national integration.
  • Currency, Coinage, Legal Tender, Foreign Exchange: Fundamental to the nation’s economic sovereignty.
  • Banking, Insurance, Stock Exchanges: Regulating the financial backbone of the country.
  • Customs Duties, Income Tax (excluding agricultural income), Corporation Tax: Major sources of revenue for the Union.
  • Citizenship, Extradition, Passport and Visas: Defining national identity and international relations.
  • Census, Union Public Services, Elections to Parliament and State Legislatures: Core administrative functions of the Union.

The exhaustive nature of the Union List ensures that the central government has the necessary legislative tools to govern critical national domains without interference from State Legislatures, fostering uniformity and efficiency in these crucial sectors.

State List (List II)

The State List consists of 61 subjects (originally 66 entries) on which the State Legislatures have exclusive power to make laws. These subjects typically pertain to matters of local or regional importance, allowing States to tailor laws according to their specific needs, socio-economic conditions, and cultural contexts. Significant entries in the State List include:

  • Public Order (excluding the use of naval, military, or air forces of the Union): Maintaining law and order within the State.
  • Police: Establishing and regulating police forces for internal security.
  • Public Health and Sanitation: Including hospitals and dispensaries.
  • Agriculture: Including agricultural education and research, protection against pests.
  • Local Government: Constituting and empowering municipal corporations, panchayats, etc.
  • Prisons, Reformatories, Borstal Institutions: Management of correctional facilities.
  • Land: Rights in or over land, land revenue, transfer and alienation of agricultural land.
  • Fisheries, State Public Services, Tolls: Local economic activities and administrative structures.
  • Liquor: Production, manufacture, possession, transport, purchase, and sale of intoxicating liquors.
  • Gambling and Betting: Regulation of such activities within the State.

The State List empowers State governments to legislate on subjects that directly impact the daily lives of their citizens, promoting decentralized governance and responsiveness to local demands.

Concurrent List (List III)

The Concurrent List contains 52 subjects (originally 47 entries) on which both the Parliament and the State Legislatures can make laws. This list reflects the areas where a uniform national policy is desirable, but local variations or specific state interventions might also be necessary. In case of a conflict or repugnancy between a Central law and a State law on a subject in the Concurrent List, the Central law generally prevails. Key entries transferred from State List to Concurrent List by 42nd Amendment Act (1976) include:

  • Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure: Encompassing offences, evidence, and court procedures.
  • Civil Procedure: Governing civil disputes and legal processes.
  • Marriage and Divorce: Personal laws that affect a significant portion of the population.
  • Education (including technical education, medical education, universities): A crucial sector for human resource development.
  • Forests and Protection of Wild Animals and Birds: Environmental conservation.
  • Trade Unions, Industrial and Labour Disputes: Regulating employer-employee relations.
  • Price Control, Factories, Boilers: Economic regulation and safety standards.
  • Economic and Social Planning: Framework for developmental policies.
  • Ports (other than major ports), Shipping and Navigation on inland waterways: Transportation infrastructure.
  • Administration of Justice (excluding Supreme Court and High Courts), Constitution and organization of all courts (except SC & HC): Judicial administration.

The Concurrent List fosters cooperative federalism, allowing for shared responsibility and legislative initiative. However, it also introduces the potential for friction due to overlapping jurisdictions, which the Constitution addresses through the doctrine of repugnancy (Article 254).

Residuary Powers

Article 248 of the Constitution vests the Parliament with exclusive power to make any law with respect to any matter not enumerated in the Concurrent List or State List. This is known as residuary power. This provision ensures that no legislative vacuum exists for new subjects or issues that may emerge over time and were not contemplated by the Constitution-makers. For instance, cyber laws, which regulate internet-related activities, fall under the residuary powers of the Parliament, as this subject did not exist when the Indian Constitution was framed. The vesting of residuary powers exclusively with the Union Parliament underscores the centralizing bias of the Indian federal system, granting the Centre flexibility to adapt to evolving challenges and technological advancements.

Interpretation of Lists

The Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, plays a crucial role in interpreting the boundaries of these lists when disputes arise between the Centre and States. Several doctrines have been developed to aid this interpretation:

  • Doctrine of Pith and Substance: This doctrine is applied when a law enacted by one level of government inadvertently trenches upon a subject falling in the exclusive list of the other. The Court examines the “pith and substance” (true nature and character) of the legislation to determine its dominant purpose. If the law, in its true essence, falls within the legislative competence of the enacting body, its incidental encroachment upon another list subject does not invalidate it.
  • Doctrine of Colourable Legislation: This doctrine applies when a legislature, lacking the direct power to legislate on a particular subject, attempts to do so indirectly or covertly by adopting a disguised form. The Court looks beyond the form to the substance of the legislation. If it finds that the legislature has merely adopted a “colourable” device to achieve something it cannot legitimately do, the law will be declared invalid.
  • Ancillary and Incidental Powers: This principle allows a legislature to enact laws not only on the main subject explicitly mentioned in a list but also on matters that are reasonably ancillary or incidental to it, and necessary for the effective exercise of the main power. For example, the power to legislate on Banking implies the power to legislate on matters related to bank accounts, negotiable instruments, etc.

These judicial doctrines help maintain the delicate balance of legislative powers and prevent encroachment, ensuring that the constitutional scheme of distribution is upheld.

Parliamentary Legislation in the State Field

Despite the clear demarcation of legislative subjects in the Seventh Schedule, the Indian Constitution provides several exceptional circumstances under which the Parliament can legislate on matters typically falling within the State List. These provisions highlight the unitary features of the Indian federal system, granting the Centre significant overriding powers, especially during times of national importance or crisis.

In the National Interest (Article 249)

If the Rajya Sabha (Council of States) declares by a resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting that it is necessary or expedient in the national interest that Parliament should make laws with respect to any matter enumerated in the State List, Parliament can then legislate on that matter. Such a resolution remains in force for a period not exceeding one year but can be extended for a further period of one year at a time by a similar resolution. Laws made under this provision cease to have effect six months after the resolution ceases to operate. This provision underscores the importance of the Rajya Sabha as a body representing the States, allowing for central intervention when national unity or interest so demands, while simultaneously placing a check on arbitrary central overreach by requiring a special majority and temporary validity.

During a Proclamation of Emergency (Article 250)

While a Proclamation of Emergency (under Article 352) is in operation, Parliament acquires the power to make laws with respect to any matter enumerated in the State List for the entire country or any part thereof. This power is concurrent with the State Legislatures’ power to legislate on the same subjects, meaning State Legislatures can also continue to legislate unless their laws conflict with the Central law. Laws made by Parliament under this provision cease to have effect on the expiration of a period of six months after the Proclamation of Emergency has ceased to operate. This provision is a crucial component of India’s emergency powers, enabling the Centre to address national crises effectively, even if it requires temporarily overriding state legislative autonomy.

By Agreement Between States (Article 252)

If two or more State Legislatures pass resolutions requesting Parliament to enact a law on a matter in the State List, Parliament can then legislate on that matter. Any law so enacted would apply only to those States that have passed such resolutions. Furthermore, any other State can adopt such a law subsequently by passing a resolution to that effect. This provision allows for greater legislative uniformity on certain subjects of common interest among States without requiring a constitutional amendment or a national emergency. Once Parliament makes such a law, the State Legislatures lose their power to legislate on that specific matter for those States that have consented or adopted the law. This mechanism facilitates cooperative federalism, enabling States to voluntarily surrender their legislative competence on specific issues to the Centre for the sake of uniformity or efficiency.

To Implement International Treaties (Article 253)

Parliament has the power to make any law for the whole or any part of the territory of India for implementing any treaty, agreement, or convention with any other country or countries or any decision made at any international conference, association, or other body. This power extends even to matters enumerated in the State List. This provision is vital for India’s foreign policy and international commitments. It ensures that India can fulfill its international obligations by enacting necessary domestic legislation, irrespective of the distribution of powers between the Centre and States. For example, environmental protection laws stemming from international conventions can be enacted by Parliament, even if certain aspects fall under the State List.

During President’s Rule (Articles 356 and 357)

When a Proclamation of President’s Rule (under Article 356) is issued in a State, declaring that the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, the President can assume to himself all or any of the functions of the State Government, including the powers of the State Legislature. In such a scenario, Parliament can be empowered to exercise the powers of the State Legislature, or the President of India can authorize any other authority (usually the Union Executive) to exercise such powers. Laws made by Parliament or under its authority during President’s Rule continue to be in force even after the revocation of President’s Rule, unless altered or repealed by the State Legislature. This provision grants the Centre extensive control over state administration and legislation during a constitutional breakdown, serving as a critical safety valve for the constitutional machinery.

Centre’s Control Over State Legislation

Beyond the specific instances where Parliament can legislate on State List subjects, the Constitution also vests the Centre with significant mechanisms to control or influence State legislation. These mechanisms act as checks and balances, ensuring consistency and adherence to national policies or constitutional principles.

Reservation of Bills for President’s Assent (Articles 200 and 201)

Article 200 grants the Governor of a State the power to reserve certain bills passed by the State Legislature for the consideration of the President. The Governor must reserve a bill that, in his opinion, derogates from the powers of the High Court. The Governor may also reserve bills if they relate to matters that fall under the Concurrent List and are repugnant to a Central law, or if they affect the powers of the Union, or if they are of grave national importance, or if they endanger the constitutional position of the State. When a bill is reserved, the President has the power to assent to the bill, withhold assent, or direct the Governor to return the bill to the State Legislature for reconsideration (though the President is not bound to give assent even if the bill is passed again). This power provides a crucial central oversight mechanism, allowing the Union Executive to review State legislation for consistency with Central laws, national policy, and constitutional provisions, thereby ensuring that State laws do not undermine the overall federal scheme.

Prior Sanction for Bills

In certain specific cases, the Constitution requires a State Legislature to obtain the prior sanction of the President for introducing a bill. For instance, Article 304(b) requires that a bill imposing reasonable restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse within the State, if introduced in the State Legislature, must receive the previous sanction of the President. Similarly, under Article 31C, laws enacted by a State to give effect to certain Directive Principles of State Policy (specifically, Article 39(b) and (c) relating to distribution of material resources and prevention of concentration of wealth) are protected from challenge on grounds of violating Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 19, but only if they receive the President’s assent. This requirement for prior sanction ensures that sensitive legislation aligns with national policies or constitutional safeguards from the outset, preventing potential conflicts or constitutional challenges later.

Repugnancy (Article 254)

The issue of repugnancy arises when both the Parliament and a State Legislature legislate on a subject enumerated in the Concurrent List, and there is an inconsistency or conflict between their respective laws. Article 254 addresses this:

  • Article 254(1): If a law made by a State Legislature with respect to a matter in the Concurrent List is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then the law made by Parliament (whether passed before or after the State law) or the existing law shall prevail, and the State law shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. This establishes the supremacy of Central law in the Concurrent List in case of conflict.
  • Article 254(2): However, if a law made by a State Legislature with respect to a matter in the Concurrent List is repugnant to an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, but the State law has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, then the State law shall prevail in that State. Nevertheless, the proviso to Article 254(2) states that Parliament is not precluded from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter, including a law adding to, amending, varying, or repealing the law so made by the State Legislature. This means Parliament can still override the State law, even if it received presidential assent, by enacting a subsequent central law on the same subject.

This mechanism ensures that while States have concurrent legislative power, the ultimate authority to resolve conflicts in this shared domain rests with the Parliament, thereby maintaining legislative consistency and coherence across the nation on subjects of common interest.

Trends and Challenges in Legislative Relations

The legislative relations between the Centre and States in India are not static; they are dynamic and constantly evolving, shaped by political developments, judicial interpretations, and socio-economic changes.

One significant trend has been the persistent demand from various States for greater autonomy and decentralization of powers. Many States argue that the current distribution of legislative powers, with its strong centralizing tendencies, limits their ability to respond effectively to regional needs and aspirations. This demand for more regional autonomy often focuses on increasing the subjects in the State List or granting States more financial resources to match their legislative responsibilities.

The role of the Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, has been pivotal in interpreting the constitutional provisions related to legislative relations. Through landmark judgments, the Court has clarified the scope of legislative lists, applied doctrines like ‘pith and substance,’ and arbitrated disputes between the Centre and States. While generally upholding the supremacy of Parliament in its defined spheres, the Indian judiciary has also acted as a guardian of the federal structure, preventing arbitrary encroachment by either level of government.

The advent of new technologies, globalization, and emerging cross-border challenges (like climate change, cyber security, pandemics) have also posed new questions regarding legislative competence. Many of these issues do not neatly fit into the existing three lists, often requiring legislative action from both levels of government or relying on Parliament’s residuary powers. This necessitates greater coordination and collaborative law-making, fostering an environment of ‘cooperative federalism’ rather than purely ‘competitive federalism.’ Initiatives like the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Council, which requires joint decision-making between the Centre and States on tax policies, exemplify a move towards this cooperative model in the financial realm, which has legislative implications.

However, instances of confrontational federalism are also not uncommon, particularly when different political parties govern at the Centre and in the States. Issues like the use of Article 356 (President’s Rule), the reservation of State bills for presidential assent, or the interpretation of Concurrent List subjects often become points of contention. The continuous interplay between these constitutional provisions and political realities ensures that legislative relations remain a lively and often debated aspect of Indian governance.

In conclusion, the legislative relations between the Centre and States in India are a complex and carefully crafted arrangement designed to balance the imperative of national unity with the need for regional autonomy. The constitutional scheme, primarily articulated in Part XI and the Seventh Schedule, delineates the territorial and subject-matter boundaries of legislative competence for both the Union Parliament and State Legislatures. The division into Union, State, and Concurrent Lists, along with the provision for residuary powers, forms the bedrock of this distribution, aiming to ensure comprehensive governance across diverse areas of public life.

While States enjoy exclusive legislative powers over subjects of local importance, the Constitution imbues the Union Parliament with significant overriding authority under various circumstances, such as in the national interest, during emergencies, by inter-state agreement, to implement international treaties, or during President’s Rule. Furthermore, mechanisms like the reservation of State bills for Presidential assent and the doctrine of repugnancy in the Concurrent List provide the Centre with critical tools to maintain legislative consistency and coherence across the nation. This unique blend of federal and unitary features underscores India’s quasi-federal nature, a system designed to be flexible enough to address both national imperatives and regional specificities. The evolving dynamics of these relations, shaped by political realities and judicial interpretations, continuously test the adaptability and resilience of India’s federal structure, demanding constant negotiation and cooperation to ensure effective governance for its vast and diverse population.