English · हिन्दी · తెలుగు · தமிழ் · മലയാളം · मराठी · ಕನ್ನಡ

Nature of Indian federalism and legislative relations

Federalism and Centre-State Relations · Part 1 / 2 · Fact-checked on 16 October 2026 · how we check

Written with AI from the sources listed at the bottom of this page, then fact-checked by a separate AI.

Why India is a 'Union of States', its federal and unitary features, the territorial extent of laws, the three lists of the Seventh Schedule, residuary powers, repugnancy, when Parliament can legislate on State subjects, and the doctrines courts use to read the lists.

federalism means that power is divided by the Constitution between two levels of government, each supreme in its own field. India has a Union government and State governments, and Part XI (Articles 245 to 263) sets out how they relate in making laws and running the administration; money matters between them are in Part XII and the emergency provisions in Part XVIII. This chapter has three parts: this first part explains what kind of federation India is and how the power to make laws is divided; the second covers administrative and financial relations and inter-state bodies; the third covers the emergency provisions, when the balance tilts sharply towards the Centre. Most Centre-State questions come back to one idea taught here: the division is real, but the Constitution keeps the Union stronger.

Article 1 declares that India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States; the word 'federation' is not used. Explaining this in the Constituent Assembly, B.R. Ambedkar said the Union was not the result of an agreement among the States, and that no State has the right to secede from it. Even so, the Constitution has the main features of a federation. There are two sets of governments; the Constitution is written and supreme, binding both; powers are divided between them by three lists; the provisions on that division can be amended only with the ratification of at least half of the State legislatures (proviso to Article 368(2)); an independent judiciary, with the Supreme Court at its head, settles disputes between the Union and the States; and Parliament has a second chamber, the Council of States, that represents the States.

Alongside these sit strong unitary features. The division of powers favours the Centre; there is one Constitution for the Union and the States and a single citizenship; the judiciary is integrated, with High Courts under the Supreme Court; all-India services serve both levels; the Governor is appointed by the President; and under Article 3 Parliament can form new States or change the area, boundaries or names of existing ones by ordinary law, after only seeking the views of the State concerned. During an Emergency the system can work almost like a unitary one. For these reasons K.C. Wheare called the Constitution 'quasi-federal', and it is often said that the Union can never be broken up, though Parliament may redraw its States. Even so, in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) the Supreme Court held that federalism is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution, which no amendment can destroy.

Article 245 sets the territorial limits of law-making. Parliament may make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India, and a State legislature for the whole or any part of its State. A Union law is not invalid merely because it operates outside India (Article 245(2)), so Parliament can, for example, make Indian criminal law apply to offences committed by Indian citizens abroad. A State law, by contrast, must have a real territorial connection with the State; it cannot ordinarily govern matters outside the State's borders. Territory is only half the question, though. The other half, which subjects each legislature may deal with, is answered by Article 246 and the Seventh Schedule.

Article 246 and the Seventh Schedule divide the subjects of law-making into three lists. The Union List (List I) holds the subjects that need one national policy, such as defence, foreign affairs, railways, currency, banking and atomic energy; only Parliament can legislate on them. The State List (List II) holds subjects of local importance, such as public order, police, public health and sanitation, agriculture and local government; ordinarily only the State legislature can legislate on them. The Concurrent List (List III) holds subjects on which both may legislate, such as criminal law, marriage and divorce, contracts, forests, education and electricity. Where an entry in one list seems to overlap with another, Article 246 gives the Union List priority over the other two, and the Concurrent List priority over the State List.

The lists are not frozen. The 42nd Amendment (1976) moved five subjects from the State List to the Concurrent List: education, forests, weights and measures, protection of wild animals and birds, and the administration of justice (the constitution and organisation of all courts except the Supreme Court and the High Courts). The reason given was that these needed uniform national standards, but the effect was to let Parliament legislate on fields that had been the States' alone. So today both Parliament and the State legislatures can make laws on subjects such as education and forests. Such a shift needs a constitutional amendment, and because it changes the Seventh Schedule it also needs ratification by half the States.

No list can foresee every subject, so Article 248 gives Parliament the exclusive power to make any law on a matter not listed in the State or Concurrent List, including the power to levy any tax not mentioned in either list; Entry 97 of the Union List says the same. These are the residuary powers. The choice reflects the framers' preference for a strong Centre: in the USA and Australia the residuary powers lie with the States, whereas India followed Canada in giving them to the Centre. Whether a new matter falls within an existing entry or is residuary is finally decided by the courts. Suppose a new technology raises a question that no entry in any list describes: Parliament, not the State legislatures, would have the power to regulate it.

Because the entries are written in broad words, laws often touch more than one list, and the courts have built doctrines to decide which legislature had the power. Under the doctrine of pith and substance, a court looks at the true nature and character of a law; if that falls within a list of the legislature that made it, the law is valid even if it incidentally touches a subject in another list. In State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara (1951) the Bombay Prohibition Act was upheld as a State law on intoxicating liquor, although it incidentally affected imports, a Union subject. The doctrine of colourable legislation works the other way: a legislature cannot do indirectly what it cannot do directly, so a law dressed up as being on one subject but really aimed at another, beyond the legislature's power, is invalid; the Supreme Court applied the test in K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa (1953). Courts also read entries harmoniously, so that each is given meaning rather than one swallowing another.

On a Concurrent List subject both Parliament and a State may legislate, so Article 254 settles a clash. If a State law is repugnant to a law made by Parliament on a Concurrent subject, the Union law prevails and the State law is void to the extent of the repugnancy. There is one exception. Under Article 254(2), a State law on a Concurrent subject that conflicts with an earlier Union law prevails in that State if it has been reserved for the President's consideration and has received the President's assent. Even then Parliament keeps the last word, because it can later make a law on the same matter that adds to, amends, varies or repeals the State law. Suppose a State wants stricter rules on a Concurrent subject than a Union Act allows: it can get them only with the President's assent, which in practice means the Union government's agreement.

In two situations Parliament may make laws even on subjects in the State List. Under Article 249, if the Rajya Sabha declares by a resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting that it is necessary in the national interest, Parliament may legislate on a State List matter named in the resolution. The resolution remains in force for up to one year and can be renewed any number of times, a year at a time, and the law ceases to have effect six months after the resolution lapses. It is the Rajya Sabha that decides because it is the House of the States. Under Article 250, while a proclamation of national Emergency is in operation, Parliament may legislate on any State List matter, and such a law ceases six months after the emergency ends. In both cases the State legislature does not lose its own power, but if the two laws conflict, the Union law prevails.

Two further routes depend on consent or on treaties. Under Article 252, if the legislatures of two or more States pass resolutions asking Parliament to legislate on a State List matter, Parliament may do so for those States, and any other State may adopt the law later by its own resolution; such a law can then be amended or repealed only by Parliament, not by the States that asked for it. The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 were passed this way. Under Article 253, Parliament may make any law, for the whole or any part of India, to implement a treaty, agreement or convention with other countries or a decision taken at an international conference, even on a State subject. The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 cites the decisions of the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment at Stockholm as its purpose.

The Union also has checks on State legislation itself. A Governor may reserve a State bill for the President's consideration (Article 200), and the President may then withhold assent (Article 201); bills that impose reasonable restrictions on trade within the State need the President's prior sanction before they are introduced (proviso to Article 304(b)); and during a financial emergency the President may require State Money Bills to be reserved (Article 360(4)). Put together, legislative relations follow one pattern: the Constitution gives the States a real sphere of their own in the State List, but surrounds it with Union powers that can be used in the national interest, in an emergency, by consent or for a treaty. That is why Indian federalism is described as having a strong Centre, and why the next parts look at how the same balance works in administration, finance and emergencies.

Exam traps

• Article 1 calls India a 'Union of States'; the word 'federation' does not appear, and no State may secede.
• Residuary powers lie with Parliament (Article 248), as in Canada, not with the States as in the USA and Australia.
• The 42nd Amendment moved education, forests, weights and measures, wild animals and birds, and administration of justice from the State List to the Concurrent List, not to the Union List.
• Article 249 needs two-thirds of the Rajya Sabha members present and voting, not of the total membership, and the Lok Sabha plays no part.
• A law made under Article 252 can be amended or repealed only by Parliament, not by the States that asked for it.
• Under Article 254(2) a State law prevails over an earlier Union law on a Concurrent subject only if it received the President's assent, and Parliament can still override it later.
• Changing the Seventh Schedule needs a constitutional amendment ratified by at least half the State legislatures.
• Pith and substance saves a law that incidentally touches another list; colourable legislation strikes down a law that does indirectly what the legislature cannot do directly.

Recap

• Article 1: India is a Union of States; not the result of an agreement, no right to secede.
• Federal features: two governments, written supreme Constitution, division of powers, rigid amendment, independent judiciary, Rajya Sabha.
• Unitary features: strong Centre, single citizenship, integrated judiciary, all-India services, Article 3, appointed Governor, emergencies; 'quasi-federal' (K.C. Wheare); federalism is basic structure (S.R. Bommai, 1994).
• Article 245: territorial extent; Union laws may operate outside India.
• Article 246 and the Seventh Schedule: Union, State and Concurrent Lists, with the Union List prevailing in overlap.
• 42nd Amendment (1976): five subjects moved from the State List to the Concurrent List.
• Residuary powers with Parliament (Article 248, Entry 97); Article 254: Union law prevails on Concurrent subjects, except 254(2).
• Parliament on State subjects: Articles 249, 250, 252, 253; Union checks through Articles 200–201, 304(b) and 360(4).

Practice questions

Sources

• Constitution of India, Articles 1, 3, 200–201, 245–254, 304, 360(4), 368(2) and the Seventh Schedule — https://legislative.gov.in/constitution-of-india/
• Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976; Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972; Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 — https://www.indiacode.nic.in
• Supreme Court of India: State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara (1951); K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa (1953); S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) — https://digiscr.sci.gov.in
• Constituent Assembly Debates, 4 November 1948 (Dr B.R. Ambedkar moving the Draft Constitution) — https://eparlib.nic.in