Constitution of India
Article 246: Subject-matter of laws made by Parliament and by the Legislatures of States
Part XI — Relations between the Union and the States (Chapter I — Legislative Relations, Distribution of Legislative Powers)
Clause (1)
WHAT IT SAYS: Parliament has exclusive power to make laws on any matter in List I (Union List) of the Seventh Schedule, notwithstanding anything in clauses (2) and (3). WHAT IT MEANS: Even if a subject appears to overlap with the State or Concurrent List, Parliament's exclusive authority on Union List subjects prevails. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Federal Supremacy — the 'non-obstante' clause gives Union List primacy over both Concurrent and State Lists.
Clause (2)
WHAT IT SAYS: Both Parliament and State Legislatures have power to make laws on matters in List III (Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule, subject to Parliament's supremacy under clause (1). WHAT IT MEANS: States can legislate on Concurrent List subjects, but if a Union law conflicts with a State law on the same subject, the Union law prevails (read with Article 254). KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Repugnancy (Article 254) — when Union and State laws on a Concurrent subject conflict, Union law overrides unless the State law has received Presidential assent.
Clause (3)
WHAT IT SAYS: Subject to clauses (1) and (2), the Legislature of any State has exclusive power to make laws on matters in List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule. WHAT IT MEANS: States enjoy exclusive legislative competence on State List subjects, but this exclusivity is subordinate to Parliament's powers under clauses (1) and (2), and can be overridden during emergencies (Articles 249, 250, 252, 253). KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Pith and Substance — courts determine the 'true nature' of a law to decide which list it falls under; incidental encroachment on another list does not invalidate the law.
Clause (4)
WHAT IT SAYS: Parliament has power to make laws on any matter for any part of India's territory not included in a State, even if that matter is in the State List. WHAT IT MEANS: Parliament can legislate on State List subjects for Union Territories (e.g., Ladakh, Chandigarh, Andaman & Nicobar Islands) since they have no full-fledged state legislature. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Territorial Nexus — Parliament's plenary power over non-State territories ensures legislative uniformity where state legislatures are absent.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. Government of India Act, 1935 (British Parliament) — Section 100, Seventh Schedule Original provision: Section 100 divided legislative powers into Federal List (59 items), Provincial List (54 items), and Concurrent List (36 items), with residuary powers vested in the Governor-General. What India kept: The three-list structure and the non-obstante clause giving federal law paramountcy were retained almost verbatim. 2. Canadian Constitution (BNA Act, 1867) — Sections 91 and 92 Original provision: Canada divides powers between Dominion Parliament and Provincial Legislatures using two lists with residuary powers given to the Centre. What India kept: Residuary powers vested in Parliament (Article 248), and the Doctrine of Pith and Substance (first established in Cushing v. Dupuy, 1880) was adopted for interpreting Article 246. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Three lists instead of Canada's two — India added a Concurrent List because of the immense diversity of subjects requiring cooperative Centre-State legislation. 2. Residuary powers to Parliament, not to the executive — Unlike the 1935 Act where the Viceroy held residuary powers, India vested them in an elected Parliament (Article 248). 3. Federal supremacy with unitary bias — India adopted a stronger centre than Canada or Australia, reflecting post-Partition anxieties about national unity and integration of 500+ princely states.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 13 June 1949 (CAD Volume VIII) Draft Article Number: 217 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal, Muslim) — Proposed swapping the positions of clauses (2) and (3) for more logical ordering, and suggested replacing cross-referential language ('next succeeding clause') with specific clause numbers. 2. Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena — Proposed a substitute article placing State Legislature's exclusive power first and adding a clause (5) granting ancillary legislative power for effective exercise of assigned subjects, citing Australian and American precedents. 3. Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor (United Provinces, General) — Argued that Dr. Ambedkar was taking too narrow a view of permissible amendments and that Prof. Saksena's substitute should be in order. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Clause ordering — Naziruddin Ahmad wanted clauses reordered for logical flow; Ambedkar's Drafting Committee maintained the existing structure. 2. Ancillary powers clause — Saksena wanted an express provision that legislative power includes power to legislate on ancillary matters essential for effective exercise; the Assembly rejected this. FINAL OUTCOME: The debate was short; Naziruddin Ahmad's drafting amendment to use specific clause numbers instead of 'next succeeding clause' was accepted, but Saksena's substitute article adding ancillary powers was rejected by the Assembly. AMBEDKAR'S KEY QUOTE (paraphrased from CAD): 'The States are not dependent on the Centre for their legislative or executive authority; the Centre and States are co-equal in this matter as the Constitution itself distributes the powers.'
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1962) — Parliament has supremacy over States on Union and Concurrent List matters; reinforced the unitary tilt in India's federalism. 2. R.M.D.C. v. Union of India (1957) — Parliament can legislate on a subject appearing in multiple lists; the doctrine of pith and substance must be applied to determine legislative competence under Article 246. 3. Union of India v. H.S. Dhillon (1972) — Parliament has exclusive residuary power under Article 248; Article 246 must be read alongside Article 248 to determine Parliament's complete legislative competence. 4. Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1983) — Union law overrides State law on Concurrent List matters in case of inconsistency, as per Article 246(2) read with Article 254. 5. ITC Ltd. v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee (2002) — Legislative competence must be judged by the true nature (pith and substance) of the law; raw agricultural produce falls under State competence even when the processed industry is declared under Entry 52, List I. 6. State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara (1951) — First major application of pith and substance doctrine; a State prohibition law was upheld as its dominant purpose was public health (State List), despite incidental effects on trade (Union List). NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. Justice Pattanaik and Justice Bharucha in ITC Ltd. v. APMC (2002) — Adopted a wide reading of 'industry' under Entry 52, List I; argued that once Parliament declares control, it may regulate raw materials and marketing of that industry. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. D.D. Basu — Article 246 establishes a quasi-federal distribution; the non-obstante clause in clause (1) makes Union supremacy explicit even without invoking emergency provisions. 2. M.P. Jain — The three-list system under Article 246 is more elaborate than any comparable federal constitution; it minimizes inter-governmental litigation but the 42nd Amendment's transfer of subjects increased centralization.