Unit – II : Distribution of Powers between Union and States

Legislative Powers:

The distribution of legislative powers between the Union (central government) and the States in India is outlined in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. The Seventh Schedule divides legislative powers into three lists:

  1. Union List (List I): It includes subjects on which only the Parliament has the exclusive power to legislate. Some examples of subjects under the Union List include defense, foreign affairs, currency, atomic energy, interstate trade and commerce, banking, etc.
  2. State List (List II): It includes subjects on which only the state legislatures have the exclusive power to legislate. Some examples of subjects under the State List include police, public health and sanitation, agriculture, local government, public order, etc.
  3. Concurrent List (List III): It includes subjects on which both the Union and the States can legislate. If there is a conflict between Union and State laws on subjects in this list, the Union law prevails. Some examples of subjects under the Concurrent List include criminal law and procedure, marriage and divorce, bankruptcy and insolvency, adoption, education, etc.

Additionally, there’s a residuary power vested in the Parliament (Article 248), which allows it to legislate on any matter not enumerated in any of the three lists if it is deemed to be in the national interest.

The distribution of powers aims to maintain a balance between the central authority necessary for the integrity and security of the nation and the autonomy and flexibility required by the states to address local needs and concerns. However, in case of inconsistency or conflict between laws enacted by the Union and the States, the Doctrine of Repugnancy (as mentioned earlier) provides a mechanism for resolving such conflicts.

Administrative Powers

The distribution of financial powers between the Union (central government) and the States in India is primarily outlined in Articles 268 to 293 of the Constitution of India. These provisions detail various aspects of financial relations between the Union and the States, including taxation, grants-in-aid, borrowing powers, revenue sharing, and financial autonomy. Here’s a summary of the key aspects:

  1. Taxation Powers:
    • The Union has the power to levy taxes on income other than agricultural income, customs duties, excise duties on goods manufactured or produced, goods imported into India, and corporation tax.
    • The States have the power to levy taxes on agricultural income, land revenue, goods and services tax on intra-state sales, stamp duty on certain transactions, excise duty on alcoholic beverages, and entertainment tax among others.
  2. Grants-in-Aid:
    • The Union government can provide grants-in-aid to States as per the recommendations of the Finance Commission or as part of centrally sponsored schemes.
    • Grants-in-aid are provided to States for various purposes including promoting economic development, supporting specific projects, and addressing revenue deficits.
  3. Borrowing Powers:
    • Both the Union and the States have the power to borrow money from various sources including the Reserve Bank of India, other financial institutions, and external sources.
    • However, there are limitations on the borrowing powers of both the Union and the States to ensure fiscal discipline and sustainability.
  4. Revenue Sharing:
    • The Union and the States share certain taxes collected by the Union government. For example, proceeds of certain taxes like the Goods and Services Tax (GST) are shared between the Union and the States as per the provisions of the GST Council.
  5. Financial Autonomy:
    • While the Union government provides financial assistance to the States, the States also have autonomy in financial matters including budgetary allocations, taxation policies, and expenditure priorities within their jurisdictions.
  6. Finance Commission:
    • The Finance Commission is constituted by the President every five years to recommend the distribution of financial resources between the Union and the States.
    • The Commission also recommends the principles governing the grants-in-aid to the States and the measures needed to augment the Consolidated Fund of a State to supplement the resources of local bodies in the State.

Administrative powers

The distribution of administrative powers between the Union (central government) and the States in India is primarily guided by the provisions of the Constitution of India. While the Constitution provides a federal structure, it also recognizes the need for a strong central authority for the unity and integrity of the nation. Here’s an overview of how administrative powers are distributed:

  1. Union List (List I):
    • The Union List contains subjects on which the central government has exclusive authority to administer and legislate. This includes areas such as defense, foreign affairs, currency, atomic energy, interstate trade and commerce, banking, railways, etc.
    • The central government has the responsibility for the administration and implementation of laws related to these subjects throughout the country.
  2. State List (List II):
    • The State List contains subjects on which the state governments have exclusive authority to administer and legislate. This includes areas such as police, public health and sanitation, agriculture, local government, public order, etc.
    • State governments have the responsibility for the administration and implementation of laws related to these subjects within their respective states.
  3. Concurrent List (List III):
    • The Concurrent List contains subjects on which both the central government and the state governments can legislate. This includes areas such as criminal law and procedure, marriage and divorce, bankruptcy and insolvency, adoption, education, etc.
    • Both the central and state governments can administer laws related to these subjects within their jurisdictions. In case of inconsistency or conflict between Union and State laws on subjects in this list, the Union law prevails.
  4. Residuary Powers:
    • Any matter not enumerated in any of the three lists falls under the residuary powers of the Union government (Article 248). This gives the central government the authority to legislate on such matters if it is deemed to be in the national interest.

While the Constitution provides for a clear distribution of administrative powers between the Union and the States, there are also provisions for cooperation and coordination between them. For example:

  • The central government can issue directives to the states on matters listed in the State List if it deems it necessary in the national interest.
  • The central government can provide financial assistance to the states for specific projects or programs.
  • Interstate councils and other mechanisms facilitate consultation and coordination between the central and state governments on various issues of national importance.

Doctrine of Territorial Nexus

The doctrine of territorial nexus, also known as the principle of territorial jurisdiction, is a legal principle that governs the extent to which a state or country can exercise its jurisdiction over persons, property, and events that occur within its territory. In India, this doctrine is primarily established through statutory law and judicial interpretation.

Under Indian law, the principle of territorial nexus is enshrined in various statutes, including the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Constitution of India. These laws provide guidelines on when Indian courts have jurisdiction over offenses committed within the territory of India.

According to Indian jurisprudence, the doctrine of territorial nexus typically asserts that Indian courts have jurisdiction over:

  1. Offenses committed within the territorial boundaries of India.
  2. Offenses committed on board Indian vessels or aircraft registered in India.
  3. Offenses committed by Indian citizens abroad, under certain circumstances.
  4. Offenses committed by foreigners within the territory of India, subject to international law principles and bilateral agreements.

However, it’s important to note that the application of the doctrine of territorial nexus is subject to various exceptions and qualifications, including principles of international law, extradition treaties, and reciprocal arrangements with other countries. Moreover, Indian courts have occasionally ruled on cases where they have asserted jurisdiction based on the effects doctrine or passive personality principle, which extend jurisdiction to offenses that have significant effects within the territory or involve victims who are Indian nationals.

Overall, the doctrine of territorial nexus in India is an essential legal principle that determines the jurisdictional reach of Indian courts in criminal and civil matters, ensuring that justice is served within the boundaries of the country while adhering to principles of international law and comity.

Doctrine of Harmonious Construction

The doctrine of harmonious construction, also known as the principle of harmonious interpretation, is a legal principle used in statutory interpretation to resolve conflicts between different provisions of a statute or between statutes dealing with the same subject matter. This doctrine aims to give effect to all provisions of the law by interpreting them in a manner that reconciles apparent contradictions and promotes coherence within the legal framework.

In India, the doctrine of harmonious construction is widely recognized and applied by courts as a fundamental principle of statutory interpretation. It is rooted in the idea that statutes should be interpreted as a whole and in a manner that avoids inconsistency or conflict between different provisions. Instead of giving one provision precedence over another, courts strive to interpret statutes in a way that gives effect to all provisions and maintains the legislative intent behind the law.

Key principles underlying the doctrine of harmonious construction in India include:

  1. Presumption of consistency: Courts presume that the legislature intended to enact a coherent and consistent body of law. Therefore, when interpreting statutes, courts seek to reconcile conflicting provisions rather than treating them as irreconcilable.
  2. Avoidance of redundancy: Courts avoid interpretations that render any provision redundant or meaningless. Instead, they strive to give each provision its intended effect and purpose.
  3. Contextual interpretation: Statutory provisions are interpreted in the context of the entire statute, as well as the legislative intent, purpose, and object of the law. This holistic approach helps in harmonizing provisions that may appear contradictory on their face.
  4. Promoting legislative intent: The primary aim of harmonious construction is to give effect to the legislative intent behind the statute. Courts interpret provisions in a manner that aligns with the overall purpose and objectives of the legislation.

The doctrine of harmonious construction serves as a guiding principle for courts in resolving ambiguities and inconsistencies in statutory interpretation, ensuring a coherent and consistent application of the law while upholding legislative intent. By promoting harmony and coherence within the legal framework, this doctrine contributes to the stability and predictability of the legal system.

Doctrine of Pith and Substance

The doctrine of “pith and substance” is a legal principle used in constitutional law to determine the true nature or essential character of a law or legislative provision. It is particularly relevant in federal systems like that of India, where there is a division of powers between the central (union) government and the state governments. The doctrine helps in resolving disputes regarding whether a particular law falls within the legislative competence of the enacting authority.

In India, the doctrine of pith and substance is applied primarily in the context of interpreting the distribution of legislative powers between the Union (central) government and the state governments as outlined in the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution.

The Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution contains three lists:

  1. Union List: It enumerates subjects on which only the Parliament (central government) has exclusive legislative jurisdiction.
  2. State List: It contains subjects on which only the state legislatures have exclusive legislative jurisdiction.
  3. Concurrent List: It consists of subjects on which both the Parliament and the state legislatures have concurrent powers to legislate.

When a law is challenged on the grounds that it encroaches upon the legislative powers of another level of government, the courts use the doctrine of pith and substance to determine the true character or essence of the law. The courts look beyond the form of the law to its substance or essence to ascertain whether it falls within the legislative competence of the enacting authority.

Key principles underlying the doctrine of pith and substance include:

  1. Substance over form: Courts focus on the substance or true nature of the law rather than its mere form or appearance.
  2. Legislative intent: The courts seek to discern the underlying legislative intent behind the enactment of the law.
  3. Single integrated scheme: The courts analyze whether the law forms part of a single integrated scheme of legislation falling within the jurisdiction of the enacting authority.
  4. Preponderance of purpose: The courts consider the dominant or main purpose of the law in determining its pith and substance.

By applying the doctrine of pith and substance, the courts ensure that laws are interpreted in a manner consistent with the constitutional distribution of powers between the Union and the states, thereby upholding the federal structure of the Indian Constitution.

Doctrine of Repugnancy

The Doctrine of Repugnancy is a legal principle primarily used in India to resolve conflicts between laws enacted by the central government and those enacted by the state governments. This doctrine is derived from Article 254 of the Constitution of India, which deals with the legislative powers of the Parliament and the state legislatures.

According to this doctrine, if there is a conflict between a law passed by the Parliament (i.e., a Union law) and a law passed by a state legislature, and if the Parliament expressly states that the law is to prevail in case of such conflict, then the Union law prevails, and the state law becomes void to the extent of the repugnancy.

The doctrine has two aspects:

  1. Express Repugnancy: This occurs when a law passed by the state legislature is explicitly inconsistent with a law enacted by the Parliament on a matter enumerated in the Concurrent List or when such state law is in direct conflict with a law passed by Parliament on a matter enumerated in the State List.
  2. Implied Repugnancy: This occurs when there is an inconsistency between a Union law and a State law, even if the Union law does not expressly state that it prevails over the State law. In such cases, the courts examine whether the two laws can coexist harmoniously or if there is an implied intention of Parliament to override the State law.

The doctrine serves to ensure uniformity and avoid conflicts between central and state legislation in India. It provides a mechanism for resolving disputes over legislative authority and maintaining the supremacy of Parliament in matters where both the central and state governments have jurisdiction.