Constitution of India
Article 258: Power of the Union to confer powers, etc., on States in certain cases
Part XI — Relations between the Union and the States (Chapter II: Administrative Relations — General)
Clause (1)
WHAT IT SAYS: The President may, with the consent of the State Government, entrust — conditionally or unconditionally — Union executive functions to the State Government or its officers. WHAT IT MEANS: The Union can delegate any of its executive tasks to a State, but only with the State's agreement — preserving State autonomy. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Cooperative Federalism — delegation of Union executive functions to States by mutual consent.
Clause (2)
WHAT IT SAYS: A Parliamentary law applicable in a State may confer powers and impose duties on the State or its officers, even on matters outside the State Legislature's competence. WHAT IT MEANS: Parliament can unilaterally (without State consent) assign implementation duties to State officers for Union laws — no consent of State needed here, unlike Clause (1). KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy in Union Subjects — Parliament may commandeer State machinery for implementing central legislation.
Clause (3)
WHAT IT SAYS: Where powers/duties are conferred on a State under this Article, the Government of India shall pay the State for any extra administrative costs — the sum to be agreed, or failing agreement, determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Chief Justice of India. WHAT IT MEANS: Financial safeguard for States — the Centre must reimburse additional costs of carrying out Union functions, ensuring fairness. KEY DOCTRINE: Principle of Financial Accountability in Delegation — States shall not bear the fiscal burden of Union functions imposed on them.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. Government of India Act, 1935 — Section 124 Original provision: Section 124(1) allowed the Governor-General, with consent of Province or Federated State, to entrust Union executive functions to them; Section 124(2)–(4) allowed Federal Legislature to impose duties on Provinces and provided for reimbursement of extra costs. What India kept: Almost identical language — 'Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution/Act', consent requirement, conditional/unconditional entrustment, and the arbitration by CJI mechanism. 2. Canadian Constitution (BNA Act, 1867) — General federal model Original provision: Canada adopted a federation with a strong centre and residuary powers with the Dominion. What India kept: The concept of federal supremacy with cooperative administrative mechanisms. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Replaced 'Governor-General' with 'President' and 'Province' with 'State' — to reflect republican sovereignty and democratic governance. 2. Dropped reference to 'Federated States' and their Rulers — India's princely states were integrated; no parallel tier needed. 3. Added Article 258A (via 7th Amendment, 1956) for reverse delegation — States can entrust functions to the Union, creating a two-way cooperative channel absent in the 1935 Act.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 13 June 1949 (CAD Volume VIII) KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Chairman, Drafting Committee) — Moved Draft Article 235 for adoption, noting it empowered the Union Executive and Legislature to confer federal powers, duties and functions on State Governments and their officers. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. None recorded — Draft Article 235 was adopted without debate or amendments. FINAL OUTCOME: Draft Article 235 was adopted as moved, without any amendment or objection — reflecting consensus on the cooperative federalism mechanism. NOTE ON DEBATE CONTEXT: The session on 13 June 1949 covered Draft Articles 216 to 247 at a rapid pace; many administrative-relations articles (including 235) were passed without discussion, indicating broad agreement among members on the framework borrowed from Section 124 of the Government of India Act, 1935.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Jayantilal Amratlal Shodhan v. F.N. Rana (1963) — Article 258(1) empowers the President to delegate only executive functions, not legislative or quasi-judicial functions; delegation requires explicit State consent, and notifications under it do not have the force of law. 2. State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1963) — Upheld Union's constitutional supremacy in coordinating executive functions across States, while recognising States' right to autonomy within their jurisdiction. 3. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977) — The Union's powers under provisions like Article 258 must respect the federal distribution of powers and cannot be exercised to undermine State autonomy. 4. Union of India v. State of Kerala (1979) — Delegation under Article 258 does not amount to transfer of legislative power; it only facilitates administrative convenience, and State officers act as agents of the Union. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. Justices Wanchoo & Subba Rao in Jayantilal Shodhan (1963) — Argued for a broader interpretation of 'functions' under Article 258(1), contending it should not be confined to purely executive functions. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. D.D. Basu — Article 258 is an essential tool of cooperative federalism that prevents duplication of administrative machinery and promotes efficiency. 2. M.P. Jain — The distinction between Clause (1) (requiring consent) and Clause (2) (no State consent needed) reflects the dual nature of Indian federalism — cooperative yet centrally dominant.