CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-2 NOTES
Federalism/ Centre State Relations
Part XI
Union list-100
State list-61
Concurrent list-52
Two types of jurisdiction-territorial and subject matter
Territorial nexus test-
Wallace v. Income Tax Commissioner, Bombay-There was a company registered in London but
had a Indian firm as its partner. Indian Income Tax authority wanted to tax the income of the
company as the major income of the company came from India.
Territorial nexus-If the parliament wants to make a extra territorial law, then there should be a
reasonable nexus between the subject matter and the law.
State of Bombay v. RMDC-The Respondent was not residing in Bombay but he conducted
Competitions with prize money through a newspaper printed and published from Bangalore having
a wide circulation in Bombay. All the essential activities like filling up of the forms,entry fees etc
for the competition took place in Bombay.The state govt. sought to levy tax the respondent for
carrying on business in the state.It was held that as all the activities which the competitor is
ordinarily expected to undertake took place most, if not in entirety, within Bombay. These
circumstances constituted a sufficient territorial nexus which the entitled state of Bombay to impose
a tax on the respondent.
Doctrine of pith and substance-
Prafulla Kumar v. Bank of Commerce-To regulate the amount of interest that moneylenders can
take, an act was passed by the Bengal legislature. The Union challenged this by saying that this act
governs promissory notes as well, which are a part of the Union list.
Doctrine of pith and substance-whenever the true nature of a legislation needs to be found out, it
needs to be seen as a whole. The object, scope and effect, all have to be regarded.
In this case, the main objective of the act was for moneylending and promissory notes were
incidental, and hence, the statue is valid.
State of Bombay v. FN Balsara-It was a case in which Bombay Prohibition Act was challenged on
the grounds that the prohibition of liquor on the borders was a matter of Central Government. The
act was held valid by the court because it was in its pith and substance and fell under the State List
though it was impacting the import of liquor.
Legislative competence-State of Karnataka v. UOI-The Karnataka Government challenged
Section 3 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 which authorised the Central Government to
constitute a judicial inquiry against the Ministers on the State including the Chief Minister. The
State contended on the grounds of federalism and the scheme of the Constitution. It was argued that
under Article 164(2) of the Constitution, the State Cabinet was collectively responsible for the State
Legislative Assembly and not to the Centre. The Supreme Court did not approve the contentions
made by the state and held that the distinction between the State and the State Government was
immaterial in this context, thus the validity of the Act in question was upheld.
Page 1 of 40
 
, Doctrine of harmonious construction-Whenever there is a case of conflict between two or more
Statutes or between two or more parts or provisions of a Statute, then the Statute has to be
interpreted upon harmonious construction. It signifies that in case of inconsistencies, proper
harmonisation is to be done between the conflicting parts so that one part does not defeat the
purpose of another.
Calcutta Gas Company Private Limited v. State of West Bengal- the Oriental Gas Company Act,
1960, was passed by the State Legislative Assembly of West Bengal. The appellant challenged the
Act’s validity, arguing that the State Legislative Assembly lacked the authority to pass it under
items of the State List (Constitution of India, List II). This challenge arose because the government
sought to take over the management of the gas company. The appellant contended that the
Parliament had already enacted the Industries Development and Regulation Act, 1951, under the
Union List/List I, which dealt with industries.The Supreme Court, applying the rule of harmonious
construction, determined that Entry 25 of the State List comprehensively covered the gas industry,
giving the State full control. Therefore, the State had the authority to enact laws related to the gas
industry.
Doctrine of colourable legislation-What cannot be done directly, should also not be done
indirectly.This doctrine has been used in the cases to decide questions of capacity/ competency to
enact a law when a lawmaking body violates its given power and enact after something in an
indirect way which it can't do in a direct way.
State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh-In this case, the petitioner, tested and challenged the
legitimacy of the Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950 on the premise that the demonstration was
apparently planned to set out the guideline of pay however indeed, it didn't set out any such rule.
This was claimed as the implied endeavor to deny the petitioner of his right to remuneration. The
court additionally maintained the unconstitutionality of the Act.
Doctrine of ancillary legislation-The power to legislate carries with it the power to legislate over
ancillary matters.
State of Rajasthan v. G Chawla-the Supreme Court held that the power to legislate on a topic
includes the power to legislate on an ancillary matter which can be said to be reasonably included in
the topic.
Doctrine of delegated legislation-Delegated legislation means exercising of legislative power by
an agent who is lower in rank to the Legislature, or who is subordinate to the Legislature.
Queen v. Burah-Privy Council only authorised conditional legislation.In this case, the privy
council transferred the legislature's power to the executive. The administration of a territory's civil
and criminal justice might be entrusted to officials selected by the Lieutenant-Governor regularly.
Page 2 of 40
 
, Ch1-Legislative Relations(245-255)
Article 245-Extent of laws made-Clause 1 talks about that the parliament can make laws for the
entire territory of India and the State legislature can make laws for the territory of the State.
Clause 2 states that laws made by the parliament cannot be deemed to invalid on the grounds of
extra-territorial operation.
Article 246-Subject matter-Parliament can laws on the matters given in the Union list(List 1 of
Schedule 7).
State can make laws on the matters given in the State list.(List 2)
Parliament and the state legislature both have the power to make laws on the concurrent list.(List 3)
Article 246A-GST Tax-The legislature of States has the power to make laws on the GST tax
imposed by Union but only the parliament can make laws on inter-state trade.
Article 247-Power of parliament to establish additional courts-Parliament can do it for better
administration of laws for the matters of Union list.
Article 248-Residuary powers-Parliament make laws on the items not mentioned in either of the
lists and make tax on such issues as well.
Article 249-Parliament to make laws for the state list in matters on national interest-If 2/3rds
of member in the Rajya Sabha, present and voting pass a resolution that a law needs to be made in
national interest on the state list then it shall be allowed. Also, for GST.
This resolution shall only apply for 1 year.
The law such as made, shall cease to exist after 6 months, after the resolution has lapsed.
Article 250-Parliament to make laws for state list in emergency-When an emergency is in order,
parliament can make laws on the state list and on the GST under 246A.
The law such as made, shall cease to exist after 6 months, after the emergency has ended.
Article 251-Inconsistency between the laws under 249,250 and state legislatures-When the
parliament is making laws by virtue of 249,250 the laws of state legislature shall not apply till the
period of the ending of the resolution. The law inconsistent shall be repugnant.
Article 252-Parliament to legislate for two or more states by consent and adoption-If the state
legislatures pass an resolution allowing parliament to legislate on a particular item from the state
list, then it shall be allowed. The act then passed by the parliament shall apply to the state but the
states cannot rescind or amend the act, that power only resides with the parliament.
Article 253-Ratification of international agreements-Parliament has the power to make any law
for the whole of territory for implementing any international treaty, doctrine, etc.
Article 254-Inconsistency between laws made by the parliament and state
legislatures(Doctrine of repugnancy)-Any law made by the parliament, for the subject of
concurrent list, shall prevail, over the law made before or after by the state legislature.
Page 3 of 40
 
, If a law made by the state legislatures is repugnant to the law made by the president, on the
concurrent list, then the law made by the state legislature may prevail in the state by consideration
of the president. But, the parliament can review this and modify or rescind it as well.
Krishna Dist. Co-op. Marketing Soc. Ltd. v. N.V.P.Rao-the state law which had been enacted
after the central law and which had received the assent of the president would continue to operate
over the central law, if there was a repugnancy between the two. If there was no such repugnancy,
then the two laws would continue to co-exist.
Article 255-Matters of procedure-No act of parliament or legislature shall be void, only because it
did not receive any previous sanction required by this constitution, if the assent was given by the
governor, president or rajpramukh where required.
Chapter-2-Administrative relations(256-263)
Article 256-Obligation of States and the Union-The executive power of the states have to ensure
compliance to the laws made by the Union and the State, and the Union executive can also pass
directions to the state.
Jay Engineering works v. State of WB-The state of WB had issued a circular. The circular
mentioned that police officers are not going to interfere when the workers of industrial
establishment are exercising gherao over the industrial establishment. The circular issued by the
state of WB comes in procedures of CRPC. The writ petition was filed by Jay engineering works.
Calcutta HC said the circular need to be struck down. The state government cannot exercise the
power in such a way where it constitutes hurdles. The state executive power should always be such
that they do not cause interference, hurdles in the powers of the centre. They should exercise the
power in harmony.
Article 257-Control of the Union over states-The executive of state shall not delay or prejudice
the exercise of executive power of the Union. The power of Union executive shall remain to issuing
directions to the State.
Executive power of Union-
1)Issue directions to state.
2)Issue directions when in national or military importance. Proviso-power to declare national
highway or waterway.
3)Issue directions for protection of railways.
4)To carry out functions under 2 and 3, the Centre government shall give the extra costs incurred. In
case of disputes, CJI shall appoint arbitrator.
Article 258-Power of union to confer powers on States-The president with consent of the
governor of the state, entrust functions of the executive power of the union to some officers or gov
of state.
Such officers shall be paid for the extra costs and it shall be determined by the arbitrator appointed
by CJI.
Jayantilal Amratlal v. FN Rana-In this case, under article 258 The power was given to the
commissioner of the state of Bombay were given the power to acquire the land and were subject to
the control of state government.This was before reorganisation of states. One of the commissioners
who got the power happened to go with the state of Gujarat. That commissioner continued to
exercise the power and went ahead. The notification has given the power to the state of Bombay. It
Page 4 of 40
 
Federalism/ Centre State Relations
Part XI
Union list-100
State list-61
Concurrent list-52
Two types of jurisdiction-territorial and subject matter
Territorial nexus test-
Wallace v. Income Tax Commissioner, Bombay-There was a company registered in London but
had a Indian firm as its partner. Indian Income Tax authority wanted to tax the income of the
company as the major income of the company came from India.
Territorial nexus-If the parliament wants to make a extra territorial law, then there should be a
reasonable nexus between the subject matter and the law.
State of Bombay v. RMDC-The Respondent was not residing in Bombay but he conducted
Competitions with prize money through a newspaper printed and published from Bangalore having
a wide circulation in Bombay. All the essential activities like filling up of the forms,entry fees etc
for the competition took place in Bombay.The state govt. sought to levy tax the respondent for
carrying on business in the state.It was held that as all the activities which the competitor is
ordinarily expected to undertake took place most, if not in entirety, within Bombay. These
circumstances constituted a sufficient territorial nexus which the entitled state of Bombay to impose
a tax on the respondent.
Doctrine of pith and substance-
Prafulla Kumar v. Bank of Commerce-To regulate the amount of interest that moneylenders can
take, an act was passed by the Bengal legislature. The Union challenged this by saying that this act
governs promissory notes as well, which are a part of the Union list.
Doctrine of pith and substance-whenever the true nature of a legislation needs to be found out, it
needs to be seen as a whole. The object, scope and effect, all have to be regarded.
In this case, the main objective of the act was for moneylending and promissory notes were
incidental, and hence, the statue is valid.
State of Bombay v. FN Balsara-It was a case in which Bombay Prohibition Act was challenged on
the grounds that the prohibition of liquor on the borders was a matter of Central Government. The
act was held valid by the court because it was in its pith and substance and fell under the State List
though it was impacting the import of liquor.
Legislative competence-State of Karnataka v. UOI-The Karnataka Government challenged
Section 3 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 which authorised the Central Government to
constitute a judicial inquiry against the Ministers on the State including the Chief Minister. The
State contended on the grounds of federalism and the scheme of the Constitution. It was argued that
under Article 164(2) of the Constitution, the State Cabinet was collectively responsible for the State
Legislative Assembly and not to the Centre. The Supreme Court did not approve the contentions
made by the state and held that the distinction between the State and the State Government was
immaterial in this context, thus the validity of the Act in question was upheld.
Page 1 of 40
 
, Doctrine of harmonious construction-Whenever there is a case of conflict between two or more
Statutes or between two or more parts or provisions of a Statute, then the Statute has to be
interpreted upon harmonious construction. It signifies that in case of inconsistencies, proper
harmonisation is to be done between the conflicting parts so that one part does not defeat the
purpose of another.
Calcutta Gas Company Private Limited v. State of West Bengal- the Oriental Gas Company Act,
1960, was passed by the State Legislative Assembly of West Bengal. The appellant challenged the
Act’s validity, arguing that the State Legislative Assembly lacked the authority to pass it under
items of the State List (Constitution of India, List II). This challenge arose because the government
sought to take over the management of the gas company. The appellant contended that the
Parliament had already enacted the Industries Development and Regulation Act, 1951, under the
Union List/List I, which dealt with industries.The Supreme Court, applying the rule of harmonious
construction, determined that Entry 25 of the State List comprehensively covered the gas industry,
giving the State full control. Therefore, the State had the authority to enact laws related to the gas
industry.
Doctrine of colourable legislation-What cannot be done directly, should also not be done
indirectly.This doctrine has been used in the cases to decide questions of capacity/ competency to
enact a law when a lawmaking body violates its given power and enact after something in an
indirect way which it can't do in a direct way.
State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh-In this case, the petitioner, tested and challenged the
legitimacy of the Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950 on the premise that the demonstration was
apparently planned to set out the guideline of pay however indeed, it didn't set out any such rule.
This was claimed as the implied endeavor to deny the petitioner of his right to remuneration. The
court additionally maintained the unconstitutionality of the Act.
Doctrine of ancillary legislation-The power to legislate carries with it the power to legislate over
ancillary matters.
State of Rajasthan v. G Chawla-the Supreme Court held that the power to legislate on a topic
includes the power to legislate on an ancillary matter which can be said to be reasonably included in
the topic.
Doctrine of delegated legislation-Delegated legislation means exercising of legislative power by
an agent who is lower in rank to the Legislature, or who is subordinate to the Legislature.
Queen v. Burah-Privy Council only authorised conditional legislation.In this case, the privy
council transferred the legislature's power to the executive. The administration of a territory's civil
and criminal justice might be entrusted to officials selected by the Lieutenant-Governor regularly.
Page 2 of 40
 
, Ch1-Legislative Relations(245-255)
Article 245-Extent of laws made-Clause 1 talks about that the parliament can make laws for the
entire territory of India and the State legislature can make laws for the territory of the State.
Clause 2 states that laws made by the parliament cannot be deemed to invalid on the grounds of
extra-territorial operation.
Article 246-Subject matter-Parliament can laws on the matters given in the Union list(List 1 of
Schedule 7).
State can make laws on the matters given in the State list.(List 2)
Parliament and the state legislature both have the power to make laws on the concurrent list.(List 3)
Article 246A-GST Tax-The legislature of States has the power to make laws on the GST tax
imposed by Union but only the parliament can make laws on inter-state trade.
Article 247-Power of parliament to establish additional courts-Parliament can do it for better
administration of laws for the matters of Union list.
Article 248-Residuary powers-Parliament make laws on the items not mentioned in either of the
lists and make tax on such issues as well.
Article 249-Parliament to make laws for the state list in matters on national interest-If 2/3rds
of member in the Rajya Sabha, present and voting pass a resolution that a law needs to be made in
national interest on the state list then it shall be allowed. Also, for GST.
This resolution shall only apply for 1 year.
The law such as made, shall cease to exist after 6 months, after the resolution has lapsed.
Article 250-Parliament to make laws for state list in emergency-When an emergency is in order,
parliament can make laws on the state list and on the GST under 246A.
The law such as made, shall cease to exist after 6 months, after the emergency has ended.
Article 251-Inconsistency between the laws under 249,250 and state legislatures-When the
parliament is making laws by virtue of 249,250 the laws of state legislature shall not apply till the
period of the ending of the resolution. The law inconsistent shall be repugnant.
Article 252-Parliament to legislate for two or more states by consent and adoption-If the state
legislatures pass an resolution allowing parliament to legislate on a particular item from the state
list, then it shall be allowed. The act then passed by the parliament shall apply to the state but the
states cannot rescind or amend the act, that power only resides with the parliament.
Article 253-Ratification of international agreements-Parliament has the power to make any law
for the whole of territory for implementing any international treaty, doctrine, etc.
Article 254-Inconsistency between laws made by the parliament and state
legislatures(Doctrine of repugnancy)-Any law made by the parliament, for the subject of
concurrent list, shall prevail, over the law made before or after by the state legislature.
Page 3 of 40
 
, If a law made by the state legislatures is repugnant to the law made by the president, on the
concurrent list, then the law made by the state legislature may prevail in the state by consideration
of the president. But, the parliament can review this and modify or rescind it as well.
Krishna Dist. Co-op. Marketing Soc. Ltd. v. N.V.P.Rao-the state law which had been enacted
after the central law and which had received the assent of the president would continue to operate
over the central law, if there was a repugnancy between the two. If there was no such repugnancy,
then the two laws would continue to co-exist.
Article 255-Matters of procedure-No act of parliament or legislature shall be void, only because it
did not receive any previous sanction required by this constitution, if the assent was given by the
governor, president or rajpramukh where required.
Chapter-2-Administrative relations(256-263)
Article 256-Obligation of States and the Union-The executive power of the states have to ensure
compliance to the laws made by the Union and the State, and the Union executive can also pass
directions to the state.
Jay Engineering works v. State of WB-The state of WB had issued a circular. The circular
mentioned that police officers are not going to interfere when the workers of industrial
establishment are exercising gherao over the industrial establishment. The circular issued by the
state of WB comes in procedures of CRPC. The writ petition was filed by Jay engineering works.
Calcutta HC said the circular need to be struck down. The state government cannot exercise the
power in such a way where it constitutes hurdles. The state executive power should always be such
that they do not cause interference, hurdles in the powers of the centre. They should exercise the
power in harmony.
Article 257-Control of the Union over states-The executive of state shall not delay or prejudice
the exercise of executive power of the Union. The power of Union executive shall remain to issuing
directions to the State.
Executive power of Union-
1)Issue directions to state.
2)Issue directions when in national or military importance. Proviso-power to declare national
highway or waterway.
3)Issue directions for protection of railways.
4)To carry out functions under 2 and 3, the Centre government shall give the extra costs incurred. In
case of disputes, CJI shall appoint arbitrator.
Article 258-Power of union to confer powers on States-The president with consent of the
governor of the state, entrust functions of the executive power of the union to some officers or gov
of state.
Such officers shall be paid for the extra costs and it shall be determined by the arbitrator appointed
by CJI.
Jayantilal Amratlal v. FN Rana-In this case, under article 258 The power was given to the
commissioner of the state of Bombay were given the power to acquire the land and were subject to
the control of state government.This was before reorganisation of states. One of the commissioners
who got the power happened to go with the state of Gujarat. That commissioner continued to
exercise the power and went ahead. The notification has given the power to the state of Bombay. It
Page 4 of 40
 
