Explain relations between the Union and the States in legislative matters with reference to various Articles of the Constitution? Sonia Mishra BASIC OF LAW Wed, Dec 15, 2021, at ,05:50 PM Explain relations between the Union and the States in legislative matters with reference to various Articles of the Constitution? (uppcsj_mains_2016_law_paper_1_Ques-1-d)The distribution of powers is an essential feature of federalism. In a federal state, there is a division of authority between the Union Government and the States Government. Federalism is a system of government in which the same territory is controlled by two levels of government. In general, a national government oversees broader governmental issues, while smaller subdivisions, states, and cities manage local concerns.The national government and the smaller political subdivisions both have the power to make laws and both have a certain level of autonomy from each other. In fact, the basic principle of the Federation is that the legislative, executive and financial authority is divided between the centre and state not by any law passed by the centre but by Constitution itself. India is a federal country and the Constitution of India is based on the principle of federalism which is an important part of the Indian federation.The Indian Constitution established a dual constitutional authority with a straightforward separation of powers, each of which is sovereign in its own realm. The Indian federation is not the result of an agreement between independent units, and Indian units cannot leave the union. There are a number of clauses in the constitution that control the relationship between the centre and the states. The following is a breakdown of the central-state relationship:1. The Legislative relations;2. The Administrative relations;3. Financial relations.Here we will be dealing with the relationship between the legislature and the centre-state. Articles 245 to 255 of Part XI of the Constitution set out a dual division between the Union and the states Legislative relations between centre and stateArticles 245 and 246 of the Constitution divide legislative powers between the Centre and the States on a territorial and subject-matter basis respectively. The validity of legislation cannot be questioned by invoking the abstract concept of "limited government" in order to create new judicial review grounds.Legislative authority over the territoryArticle 245 states that Parliament, subject to the Constitution's provisions, can make laws for the whole or any portion of India's territory, and the Legislature of a State can make laws for the whole or any part of the State. The ability of Parliament to create laws extends throughout India under Art. 245(1) but it is not an infinite power, as the term "subject to the provisions of the Constitution of India" shows. The restriction on enacting legislation that violates Fundamental Rights [Article 13 (2)], legislative competence (Articles 245 and 246), rule of law, and the Constitution's basic structure are the main constraints. According to Art. 245 (1) law can be enacted by the Parliament for the whole or any part of India's territory. The territory of India includes the states, the union territories, and any other area at the time the law is passed. The legislation of the Parliament is extraterritorial only. In this way, the laws of the Parliament also apply to the citizens and property of India wherever they are located (Art. 245 (2)) whereas the state legislature can make laws for the whole or any part of a state. However, the laws made by a state legislature do not apply outside of the state, except when there is a sufficient nexus between the state and the object. In general, laws made by a state legislature are not applicable outside the state, unless there is a sufficiently close relationship between the state and the object.The doctrine of Territorial Nexus Parliament may enact a law for the whole or any part of the territory of India and the state legislature may make law for the whole or any part of the state. Law made by Parliament can not be challenged on the ground that it would have extra-territorial operation. In the case of the sovereign legislature, the question of extra-territoriality of any law can never be raised in the municipal courts as a ground for challenging its validity. In Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 452, the doctrine of nexus was applied to sales tax, it was observed that the nexus theory does not impose the tax, it only indicates the circumstances in which the tax imposed by an Act. Legislative authority over the Subject Matter Article 246(1) states that the Parliament has sole authority to enact legislation on any of the issues listed in the Union List in the Constitution's Seventh Schedule. Article 246(3) gives the legislature of every state the right to enact legislation for the entire state or any part of it on any of the issues listed in List II (State List). The subject of laws enacted by Parliament and state legislatures as follows: The Union List, State List, and Concurrent List are three lists in the Constitution's Seventh Schedule that split legislative responsibility between the Union and the States. Union list- There are 100 items in the Union list. The Union Parliament has sole authority to enact legislation on the areas listed in the Union list. A few examples are international affairs, defence, armed forces, communications, post and telegraph, and foreign trade.. State list- The State list contains 61 topics on which the States can normally establish legislation on their own. These include public order, law enforcement, justice administration, prisons, municipal governments, agriculture, and so on.Concurrent list- Although both the Parliament and state legislatures have the authority to legislate on the Concurrent List, the Centre has a previous and greater right. In the event of a conflict between state and federal legislation on a Concurrent list topic, the Parliament's statute takes precedence. Criminal and civil procedure, marriage and divorce, economic and special planning, trade unions, electricity, media, books, education, population control and family planning, and so on are among the 52 items on the concurrent list. The doctrine of Harmonious Construction- The Indian Constitution divides legislative authority between the Union and State legislatures. Union list, State list, and Concurrent list have been used to categorise all of the subjects. Parliament has exclusive power to make matter embodied in the Union List and the State Legislature has the power to make laws matter embodied in the State List, While Parliament and State Legislature both have the power to make laws matter listed in the Concurrent List but in case of conflict between the laws made by Parliament and State Legislature in respect of matter listed in the Concurrent List, the law made by Parliament will prevail and the law made by State Legislature, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void unless the law made by State Legislature has received the assent of President. The residuary power has been vested in Parliament. To meet such a situation, the doctrine of harmonious Construction has been evolved by the Court. Whenever the entries in different lists are found to overlap or conflict with each other, the Court applies the doctrine of harmonious construction so as to reconcile them and bring about harmony between them. In Tika Ramji v. State of U.P., AIR 1956 SC 676, it has been held that in case of conflict between the laws made by Parliament and State Legislature, conflict should be avoided by applying the doctrine of harmonious construction. The doctrine of Pith and Substance The doctrine of Pith and Substance is applied when the legislative competence of a legislature (Union Legislature and the State Legislature) with regard to the enactment of the law or statues is challenged with reference to the entries in a different list (Union list, State list and Concurrent list) because a law dealing with a subject in one list within the competence of the legislature concerned is also touching on a subjecting another list, not within the competence of that legislature. To determine this issue, the doctrine of pith and substance is applied by the court. It can be said that the doctrine of pith and substance is applied whether the Legislature enacting the law was competent to enact it. The term "Pith and substance" stands for the true nature and character of law. By this doctrine, the real subject matter is challenged and its incidental effect is not considered. The objective of adopting this doctrine is that if every legislation/law/ Statutes were to be declared invalid/void on the grounds that it encroached powers, the law-making powers of the legislature would be confined. The Supreme Court has applied this doctrine in the case State of Bombay v. F.N Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318. The doctrine of Colourable Legislation The Constitution of India distributes the legislative powers between the Parliament and the State Legislature and, they are required to act within their respective spheres. When a Legislature enacts a law by transgressing the limits of its Constitutional power indirectly, the doctrine of colourable legislation is applied. If the law enacted by a Legislature is found in a substance and in reality beyond the competence of the legislature enacting it, it will be ultra vires and void even though apparently, it seems to be within the competence of the enacting it. This doctrine is based on maxims what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly too. The legislature can not violate constitutional limitations indirectly. In the case State of Bihar vs Kameshwar Singh, AIR 1952 SC 252, the Supreme Court of India applied this doctrine and held Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 is colourable legislation and invalid. Scope of Article 247Article 247 specifically authorises the establishment of any extra courts for the better administration of Parliamentary laws or any existing law pertaining to an issue specified in the union list. The Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 added entry 11-A to list III, allowing Parliament to pass laws concerning the administration of justice, the constitution, and the organisation of all courts except the Supreme Court and High Courts. As a result, Parliament can now create courts for the administration of state legislation.Residuary powers (Article 248).The Union Parliament also has residuary legislative powers under the Constitution (subjects not specified in any of the three Lists). The Union was granted residuary powers, which are often granted to states in other federations. If there is a disagreement, the court will decide whether a particular topic is covered by the residuary power.Power of Parliament to legislate on the state matters The power of Parliament to legislate on state subjects must be strictly safeguarded in normal times, and neither the State nor the Centre can intrude on the domain given to each by the Constitution. However, in some extraordinary circumstances, the aforementioned system of allocation is suspended or the Union Parliament's powers are expanded over the subjects listed in the State list. The unusual or exceptional circumstances are: Power of Parliament to legislate in the national interest - Article 249 provides a procedure under which Parliament can legislate over a subject in List II without formal amendment of the constitution if necessary or appropriate for the national interest. 2. During a Proclamation of emergency- During the period while a Proclamation of Emergency is in effect, restrictions on the Union Parliament's legislative authority in relation to the subjects included in the state list are lifted (Art. 352). During the Emergency, Parliament has the authority to pass legislation for the entire or any part of India's territory on all topics on the State list. (Art. 250) 3. Inconsistency between legislation enacted by Parliament under articles 249 and 250 and legislation enacted by state legislatures (Art. 251)- Articles 249 and 250 do not limit the power of a state legislature to enact any law that it has authority to enact under this Constitution; however, if any provision of a law enacted by the legislature of a state is incompatible with any provision of a law enacted by Parliament that Parliament has authority to enact under either of the said articles, the law enacted by Parliament shall prevail, whether passed before or after the law made by the State Legislature, shall prevail, and the law made by the State Legislature shall be inoperative to the degree of the repugnancy, but only while the law made by Parliament remains non-effect. 4. Power of Parliament to legislate with the Consent of the States- Article 252 states that if the legislatures of two or more States pass a resolution stating that it is desirable to have a law issued by Parliament on any matter on the State List, Parliament may make laws governing that matter. Any other State may enact such legislation by passing a resolution. Only an Act of Parliament can change or repeal such a statute. 5. The ability of Parliament to enact legislation to give effect to treaties and international agreements-Art. 253 enables the Parliament to enact laws for the entire or a portion of India's territory in order to carry out treaties, international agreements, and conventions. Art. 253 empowers the Indian government to carry out all of its international obligations and commitments. However, laws enacted to implement treaties will be subject to constitutional limitations, meaning that they cannot impinge on fundamental rights.6. Repugnancy between Central law and State law (Art. 254)The issue of repugnancy only arises in relation to the items listed in the Concurrent List as they relate to the Union and State Legislatures.If a State law dealing with a concurrent subject is repugnant to a Union law on the same subject, the Union law will prevail, regardless of whether the Union law is prior or later in time, and the State law will be void to the degree of the repugnancy.Even a repugnant law adopted by a State Legislature to an earlier Union law on the subject in Concurrent List would continue to be lawful if it is assented to by the President after being deferred for his consideration under proviso to Article 254(2).In M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India, (1979) 3 SCC 431, the Supreme Court made a detailed observation on the principle of repugnancy between a law made by a State and Parliament. 7. In case of failure of Constitutional machinery in a State- When the Parliament declares that the government of the state cannot be carried out in conformity with the Constitution's provisions, it is empowered to create laws relating to all items on the State list (Art. 356). Suggestions, sanctions, and previous actions must be treated purely as procedural requirements (Art. 255)Art. 255 states that no act of Parliament or of a State Legislature, nor any provision therein, shall be invalid merely because a recommendation or previous sanction required by this Constitution were not given if assent to that act was given: (a) when either the Governor's recommendation or a President's recommendation was required (b) when the Rajpramukh's recommendation was required, either by the Rajpramukh or by the President (c) if the President's recommendation or previous sanction was required, by the President. Thus, it is clear from the scheme of legislative powers distribution between the Union and the states that the framers gave the Union Parliament more power than the states. Even over the topics entrusted to the states by the Constitution, the states do not have exclusive jurisdiction, making them dependent on the centre to some extent.