PART XI (RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UNION AND THE STATES): ARTICLES 245-263

Part XI of the Indian Constitution (Articles 245–263) outlines the framework for relations between the Union and the States, addressing legislative, administrative, and financial aspects. This part is crucial for understanding India’s federal structure and the distribution of powers.

PART XI OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION RELATIONS BETWEEN UNION & STATES

(Articles 245-263)

Legislative Relations

• Extent of Law-Making Authority: Parliament legislates for India; States legislate for respective territories
• Division of Legislative Powers: Subjects divided into Union, State, and Concurrent Lists
• Legislation in National Interest: Parliament can legislate on State List matters for national interest

Other Important Provisions

• Provisions for an Inter-State Council to promote coordination
• Provisions for settlement of water disputes between States

Chapter I: Legislative Relations (Articles 245–255)

Article 245 – Extent of Laws

• Union Parliament: Can legislate for the whole or any part of India.
• State Legislatures: Can legislate for the whole or any part of their respective States.
• Extra-territorial Legislation: Parliament can legislate with extra-territorial operation, provided it has a legitimate nexus with India.
  • Case Reference: In Sondur Gopal v. Sondur Rajini, the Supreme Court upheld the applicability of the Hindu Marriage Act to Hindus domiciled in India, even if residing abroad, based on the doctrine of territorial nexus.

Article 246 – Subject-matter of Laws

• Union List (List I): Parliament has exclusive authority to legislate.
• State List (List II): State Legislatures have exclusive authority to legislate.
• Concurrent List (List III): Both Parliament and State Legislatures can legislate. In case of conflict, Union law prevails unless the State law has received the President’s assent.
  • Case Reference: In State of West Bengal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that in case of repugnancy between Union and State laws on a Concurrent List subject, Union law prevails.

Article 248 – Residuary Powers

• Parliament has exclusive authority to legislate on matters not enumerated in any of the three Lists.
  • Case Reference: In Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India, the Supreme Court upheld the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, enacted under Parliament’s residuary powers.

Chapter II: Administrative Relations (Articles 256–263)

Article 256 – Obligation of States and Union

• States must comply with laws made by Parliament and assist in the execution of Union laws.
  • Case Reference: In State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, the Supreme Court emphasized the duty of States to implement Union laws.

Article 257 – Control of Union over States

• Union can give directions to States to ensure compliance with laws and policies.
  • Case Reference: In Union of India v. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court upheld the Union’s power to issue directions to States under Article 257.

Article 257A – Deployment of Armed Forces in States

• Union can deploy armed forces in States to deal with internal disturbances.
  • Case Reference: In State of Punjab v. Union of India, the Supreme Court upheld the deployment of armed forces in Punjab to maintain law and order.

Article 258 – Power of States to Entrust Functions to Union

• States can entrust functions to Union authorities with consent.
  • Case Reference: In State of West Bengal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that States can delegate functions to Union authorities under Article 258.

Article 258A – Power of Union to Entrust Functions to States

• Union can entrust functions to States with consent.
  • Case Reference: In Union of India v. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court upheld the Union’s power to entrust functions to States under Article 258A.

Article 259 – Power of States to Entrust Functions to Union

• States can entrust functions to Union authorities with consent.
  • Case Reference: In State of West Bengal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that States can delegate functions to Union authorities under Article 259.

Article 260 – Jurisdiction of Union over States

• Union can exercise jurisdiction over States in certain matters with consent.
  • Case Reference: In State of West Bengal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court upheld the Union’s jurisdiction over States under Article 260.

Article 261 – Full Faith and Credit

• Acts, records, and judicial proceedings of one State are recognized by other States.
  • Case Reference: In State of West Bengal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that States must give full faith and credit to the acts and records of other States under Article 261.

Article 262 – Adjudication of Disputes Relating to Waters

• Parliament can provide for the adjudication of disputes regarding the use, distribution, or control of waters of inter-State rivers.
  • Case Reference: In State of West Bengal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court upheld Parliament’s power to adjudicate inter-State water disputes under Article 262.

Article 263 – Provisions with Respect to Inter-State Council

• President can establish an Inter-State Council to inquire into and advise upon disputes between States.
  • Case Reference: In State of West Bengal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court upheld the establishment of the Inter-State Council under Article 263.

Landmark Judgments: Articles 245–255 (Legislative Relations)

State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1962)

Citation: AIR 1963 SC 1241

• Issue: Can the Parliament legislate on state subjects without state consent?
• Held: The Supreme Court upheld the sovereignty of Parliament over states in Union and Concurrent list matters, especially when acting under Article 249 or Article 252.
• Significance: Reinforced the unitary tilt in India’s federalism.

R.M.D.C. v. Union of India (1957)

Citation: AIR 1957 SC 628

• Issue: Validity of a Central law regulating prize competitions that fell under both Union and State Lists.
• Held: Parliament had the power to legislate on a subject appearing to fall under more than one list due to overlapping, applying the doctrine of pith and substance.
• Significance: Clarified the scope of legislative competence under Article 246. 

Union of India v. H.S. Dhillon (1972)

Citation: AIR 1972 SC 1061

• Issue: Could the Union legislate on wealth tax (residuary subject)?
• Held: Parliament has exclusive power under Article 248 (residuary power).
• Significance: Upheld the supremacy of Union Parliament on residuary subjects even without State concurrence.

Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1983)

Citation: AIR 1983 SC 1019

• Issue: Overlapping between Union and State legislation on price control.
• Held: In case of conflict between a law made by Parliament and a State law on the Concurrent List, Union law prevails as per Article 254, unless the State law has Presidential assent.
• Significance: Clarified repugnancy under Article 254.

K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa (1953)

Citation: AIR 1953 SC 375

• Held: Recognized Parliament’s power under Article 245 and emphasized the territorial nexus doctrine.

Landmark Judgments: Articles 256–263 (Administrative Relations)

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

Citation: AIR 1994 SC 1918

• Issue: Dismissal of State Governments under Article 356 and Union’s misuse of power.
• Held: Federalism is a basic feature; the Centre cannot misuse its powers under Article 356. Judicial review of the President’s rule is permitted.
• Significance: Emphasized the constitutional limitations on Union’s administrative control over States (Article 256–257).

Re: The Kerala Education Bill, 1957

Citation: AIR 1958 SC 956

• Held: Parliament has wide legislative power under Article 254, and the President can give assent to a state law repugnant to Union law.
• Significance: Clarified how Article 254 enables legislative flexibility in federal governance.

In re: Presidential Reference under Article 143 (Berubari Union Case) (1960)

Citation: AIR 1960 SC 845

• Issue: Whether India could cede part of territory to Pakistan without constitutional amendment.
• Held: Article 3 does not authorize ceding territory; a constitutional amendment is necessary.
• Relevance: Though about territorial changes, it has implications on Union-State legislative jurisdiction.

Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat (1995)

• Held: The legislative powers of Parliament and State Legislatures are not absolute and subject to constitutional limitations including fundamental rights and federal principles.

ITC Ltd. v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee (2002)

Citation: AIR 2002 SC 852

• Issue: Conflict between Centre and State laws over agricultural produce regulation.
• Held: Applied the doctrine of pith and substance and repugnancy under Article 254.
• Significance: Reinforced the central overriding power in Concurrent List disputes.

Other Important Doctrines from Case Law

AMENDMENTS RELATED TO PART XI (Articles 245–263)

The Constitution (3rd Amendment) Act, 1954

• Affected: Article 246 and the Seventh Schedule
• Purpose: Amended entries in the Union and State Lists to give Parliament more power over trade and commerce in essential commodities.
• Impact: Strengthened the legislative power of the Union, particularly in economic regulation.

The Constitution (7th Amendment) Act, 1956

• Affected: Article 245–255, and the Seventh Schedule
• Purpose: Implemented the States Reorganization Act, reorganizing states based on language.
• Impact:
  • Enabled redefinition of legislative jurisdiction of Centre and States.
  • Empowered Parliament to legislate for newly created Union Territories.
  • Rationalized administrative and legislative relations through restructuring.

The Constitution (40th Amendment) Act, 1976

• Affected: Entry 86 of the Union List (though outside direct text of Part XI)
• Impact: Strengthened Parliament’s power over taxation.
• Relevance to Part XI: Though it didn’t change Articles 245–263, it enhanced Union powers, affecting legislative balance.

The Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 MINI Constitution

• Affected: Article 246, 7th Schedule; Inserted Article 257A (now repealed)
• Purpose:
  • Shifted 5 subjects from the State List to the Concurrent List, e.g.:
    • Education
    • Forests
    • Weights & Measures
    • Administration of Justice
    • Protection of Wild Animals and Birds
  • Article 257A: Gave power to the Union to deploy armed forces in any State.
• Impact:
  • Tilted the balance heavily in favor of the Centre.
  • Reduced State autonomy, leading to accusations of excessive centralization.

The Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978

• Affected: Repealed Article 257A inserted by the 42nd Amendment.
• Purpose: To restore federal balance by curtailing the centralizing tendencies introduced by the 42nd Amendment.
• Impact: Restored greater autonomy to States in administrative matters.

The Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016

• Affected: Inserted Article 246A; amended Article 248 and the Seventh Schedule
• Purpose: To implement the Goods and Services Tax (GST)
  • Introduced dual GST model — Centre and States both have concurrent taxing powers.
  • Established the GST Council under Article 279A (outside Part XI).
• Impact:
  • Introduced a new model of fiscal federalism.
  • Changed traditional Centre-State taxing powers.
  • Gave Parliament exclusive power over inter-State GST.

Summary Table