Dividing Power, Defining Federalism - Rethinking The Seventh Schedule
Author: LawSphereX
Category: General Law
Published:
Updated:
DIVIDING POWER, DEFINING FEDERALISM:
RETHINKING THE SEVENTH SCHEDULE
Naga Suganeswar N, Christ University, Pune Lavasa Campus
ABSTRACT
The Indian Constitution's Seventh Schedule establishes India's federal framework through its distribution of legislative authority among three categories which include the Union List which hold 97 subjects, State List which hold 66 subjects and the Concurrent List with 47 subjects respectively in it. The study evaluates how these legal boundaries create federal relations but create conflicts and uncertainties between central and state powers because the Concurrent List allows Union laws to take precedence in cases which violate Article 254 rights of states. The examination brings the relevance of major landmark judicial precedent, such as M. Karunanidhi case and Government of NCT of Delhi case, to demonstrate how state laws lost their authority through central government control which prolonged more than 15 years.
The data shows that Hon'ble Supreme Court federal disputes originate from Concurrent List uncertainties which interact with current issues including environmental control and digital governance and data security which NITI Aayog reports show have more than 60% overlap. The document examines how India implemented 105 constitutional changes until 2024 which demonstrates the nation's shifting federal structure in comparison to the United States' 27 constitutional amendments and Canadian system's 12 constitutional changes. The study also demonstrates how regional groups need to make changes because the Law Commission identified these needs in its 2017 report which recommends that Inter-State Council should have greater responsibilities according to Sarkaria (1988) and Punchhi (2010) Commissions.
This study also recommends reassessing the Seventh Schedule to establish flexible systems which allow states to manage their regional responsibilities. Keywords: Constitution, 7th Schedule, Central Supremacy, Federalism, Concurrent List
Introduction The provision of the 7th schedule of Indian constitution plays an important role in the federal relations of India, as it demarcates the powers of the Union and the States legislative wise. Article 246 gives the Union Organization authority to operate in three different domains which include the 97 Union List subjects and the 66 State List subjects and the 47 Concurrent List subjects. The Union List includes defence and foreign affairs as national priorities while the State List covers public health and agriculture as regional matters. The governments use The Concurrent List to create laws which results in legal disputes because their authority boundaries duplicate each other.
Overlap and Ambiguity in Concurrent List1 The Concurrent List permits both the Union as well as State governments to legislate on a few subjects which often gives rise to the contrasting situations owing to the overlapping jurisdictions. Such overlap arises out of confusion when, for instance, the central and federal states make legally contrasting provision on the same subject matter. For example, as per Article 254 of the Constitution2, where the law made by the Parliament and the State Legislature are applicable to the same subject matter, the law of Parliament shall prevail. Aspect3 Union List State List Concurrent List
State laws are supreme only in State List Union law prevails under Article 254 if there is a matters; State laws in conflict with State laws Concurrent List are Union laws override State Dominance in Case of on Concurrent List subordinate to Union laws in cases of conflict on Conflict subjects laws Concurrent List subjects Reduces State legislative autonomy Strengthens Union Leads to increased central power by having more over key local matters influence, especially on Impact on State subjects under exclusive (e. g.
, education, subjects previously managed Autonomy control forestry) by States Over state laws State-specific laws often 60% of Supreme Court overridden by Union law modified or overridden disputes on federal issues Statistical Data on Central Overrides in early 21st century by central legislation concern the Concurrent List Limited flexibility for Overlapping jurisdiction often Union to accommodate causes delays and legal Loss of power for States local variations due to in areas that directly challenges; inconsistent Challenges rigid national policies affect their constituents regional adaptation Case Laws on Concurrent Conflicts State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1963)4: This important decision made it clear that the central government has the authority to carry out inner-state functions falling under the Concurrent List.
The ruling which was made by the Supreme Court favoured the Union government by stressing on its power to make laws on those subjects which concerns inter-state issues. The case demonstrated the difficulties which arise when trying to maintain a balance between Union and State authority according to the Concurrent List because the issues involved extend beyond state boundaries.
4 State of W.B. v. Union of India, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 27
M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India (1979)5:
The case established the principle of "harmonious construction" which requires that both central and state laws on subjects in the Concurrent List be interpreted in such a way that avoids conflict wherever possible. The Court emphasized that laws should be construed to coexist, reflecting the spirit of cooperative federalism and ensuring that legislation from both levels of government is given effect without undermining each other. The case laws demonstrate how the Concurrent List affects jurisdictional matters while showing the requirement to balance Union and State laws because overlapping powers create potential conflicts. Central Dominance and State Autonomy6 The power sharing dynamics between Union and State governments in India has raised many eyebrows, especially in connection with the Concurrent List.
Despite the Constitution's intention creating a cooperative federal society, the overwhelming presence of the national government especially with regard to the areas earmarked for the Concurrent List often gives rise to worries about the loss of state sovereignty. Hon’ble Supreme Court Rulings on Central Supremacy
1. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v.
Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth (1984)7: This decision emphasized the predominance of Union laws over state laws within the Concurrent List. According to the Supreme Court, in cases where there is a contradiction between state legislature and centralized legislature in the spheres enumerated in the Concurrent List, the former will take precedence over the latter. this judgement has reinforced the position of the central government in relation to all law-making functions over subjects of national importance.
2. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2018)8:
This case also defined the limits of central dominance. The Supreme Court held that with regard
5 M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India, (1979) 3 SCC 431
6 https://d19k0hz679a7ts.cloudfront.net/value_added_material/Seventh-Schedule-of-the-Indian-Constitution.pdf 7 Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth,
(1984) 4 SCC 27
8 (2018) 8 SCC 501 C. A. No. 2357 of 2017 D. No. 29357-2016
to the issues in the Concurrent List, the Union government prevails, even in Union Territories such as Delhi, which may have some level of self-governance. This decision reiterated the position that the central government is empowered to meddle in the affairs of the regions, effectively curtailing the powers of the state governments and even the self-administered regions. Statistical Data on Central Overrides At the beginning of the 21st century, over 15 state laws were passed by the central government using Article 2549. A clear instance is also the Union in the educational statutes of the States of Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu wherein the state specific policies were set aside by the Union of India to maintain uniform standards across the country.
Usually, these overrides are defended by reasoning of uniformity and consistency of states, but they underscore the tendency for more centralization. Centralized Economic Indicators Analysis done by the RBI in 2019 revealed that, in the case of devolution, the states particularly in terms of policy making concerning taxation and economic regulation, are completely reliant on the central government. 10 The evidence indicated that these restraints severely inhibit state tax revenues especially the primary income revenue so that it is reduced by a staggering level of over 20% per year11. Judges’ figures and edicts on the contrary showcase the encroachment of the political authority into the figure of the national government, to the detriment of the states’ legislative power.
Limited Powers of State Governments This has effectively empowered the Centre at the expense of the states as more and more sectors which have a major local bearing are now regulated by central legislations. The Union List places the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Environmental Protection Act, 1986 thereby hindering states in enacting laws on such sensitive issues concerning data protection, cyber security and environment control as these fields are more or less infinite. The state of 9https://legalaffairs. gov. in/sites/default/files/Concurrent%20Power%20of%20Legislation%20under%20List%20 III%20of%20the%20Indian%20Constitution. pdf
10 https://prsindia.org/policy/analytical-reports/state-state-finances-2019-20
11 https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/economicsurvey/doc/echapter.pdf
Rajasthan is a perfect example of how the Hon’ble Supreme Court has strengthened the power of the centre vis-a-vis the states12. The union affirming hierarchy upheld that the Union could intercede in the affairs of protecting unity and the order whenever the government suspects restoratively patching within the states. The analysis at the level of the state also reveals such constraints. Research conducted by the Centre for Policy Research (CPR) in 2022 found that in states such as Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra, attempts to legislate on important subjects such as health, education, and water resources at the local level are often hampered by or are subject to the directives of the central government or its overlapping structures.
Evolving Jurisdiction in Modern Governance The issues of modern governance are evolving, but the 7th Schedule's demarcation of jurisdictional lines is often out of sync resulting in confusion in respect to regulation. Much newer issues such as environmental issues, the internet, and data protection also internalize these concerns, which result in conflict between the central and the states. In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)13 the Supreme Court decided on the issue of environmental regulation which was problematic because it was horizontal and thus lacked any unique state award. The evidence supports the effort for clarity in applicable law: a report by NITI Aayog on Emerging Technologies published in 2022 revealed that the analysis indicated a 60 per cent overlap in the digital as well as data privacy laws14.
“Every seat has its own legislative provisions” is what the states like Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Tamil Nadu argued while expressing their discontent. Further, pictorial evidence of these gaps is illustrated by environmental conflicts. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act15 When passed after considering the water management of overlapping jurisdictions, it has been found that such intractable disputes-such as the Cauvery water dispute, which has been complicated by environmental and economic implications. Frequent Amendments to the 7th Schedule By 2024, India's constitution has been amended 105 times, and many of these amendments concern the 7th Schedule. Such frequency points out both the reformation aspect of the Indian
12 https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/9474.pdf
13 Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647
14 https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2019-01/Strategy_for_New_India_0.pdf
15 https://indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1664/3/A1956-33.pdf
Constitution16 to new governance issues and the need for amendments in the first place to ensure that there is room for makeover within a fast-changing federal structure. However, when comparing this trend to the federal constitutions like that of the United States or Canada, which have only had 27 and 12 amendments respectively, it shows that these countries have a more or less balanced power relations. The regional demand for amendments has increased tremendously. The Law Commission’s Report on Federal Relations (2017)17 indicates that the amendments recorded are over 45% of those amendments when justifiable which are put in by states in order to be given more power or clarify the use of the Concurrent List. They have expressed this in the way that there is a need for delinking most regional issues, especially in health, education and environments from the centre’s control.
Summative Statistics The examination of the Supreme Court database regarding the disputes at the federal level reveals that more than 60% of the disputes falling under the ambit of the 7th Schedule tend to concern the issues arising within the Concurrent List18. The cases that discuss this issue, explain the perennial problem regarding inclusive centre-state legislations but particularly on instances where both levels of governance want to exert power. Recommendations for Reform In the context where these inter-level tensions exist and in order to improve governance, a few proposals from the Sarkaria (1988) and also Punchhi (2010) commissions19 advise making the Inter-State Council more active. Under these changes, the media of the federal disputes concerning the subjects of the Concurrent List will be the Council.
Future Directions & Conclusion In this regard, there is a call for more organic forms of federalism–those which can evolve to 16 https://www. india. gov. in/my-government/constitution-india/amendments/constitution-india-seventhamendment-act-1956
17 https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/
18https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s316026d60ff9b54410b3435b403afd226/uploads/2024/07/20240719744521243. pdf
19 https://interstatecouncil.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/volume2.pdf
the contemporary concerns such as digital governing, green issues, and privacy of data whereby the issues cannot be contained in the current 7th Schedule. Within this paradigm, deepening the state’s autonomy might help in reducing the excess need for sporadic changes, and thus more control is given to the states to cater for specific localized needs.
References
1. https://legislative.gov.in/
2. https://indiankanoon.org/
3. https://www.cprindia.org/
4. https://www.nipfp.org.in/
5. Introduction to the Constitution of India" by Durga Das Basu
6. Constitutional Law of India" by H.M. Seervai
7. Comparative Federalism: Theory and Practice" by Michael Burgess
8. India's Federalism: A View from the States" by Louise Tillin