India’s unique federal system rests on a delicate distribution of legislative powers between the Union (central government) and the States. Article 246 of the Indian Constitution is pivotal in defining this relationship, offering a framework that has evolved alongside India’s economic, social, and political dynamics. Understanding this Article is crucial for interpreting policy conflicts, governance issues, and the balance of power in the world’s largest democracy.
Article 246 lays out how legislative authority is shared between Parliament and State Legislatures via the Seventh Schedule, which comprises three lists:
Article 246’s four clauses establish which body has supremacy over each list and how conflicts are resolved, especially when concurrent jurisdiction leads to contradictions.
This hierarchy underscores the “quasi-federal” nature of the Indian polity, as observed in both academic literature and judicial pronouncements.
In the late 1940s, the Constituent Assembly faced competing demands—some members favored strong State autonomy, while others advocated a robust, centralized Union. The chaos of Partition and concerns about unity prompted the drafters to borrow from Canadian and Australian federal models but shape a system giving Parliament significant override powers.
This balance was not static. Over decades, States have sought greater autonomy, especially as regional parties gained prominence. Yet, Supreme Court decisions—such as the landmark State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1962)—have upheld Parliament’s supremacy where the Union List or national interest is involved.
“Our Constitution is neither purely federal nor purely unitary, but is a combination of both. In case of conflict, the central law will prevail,” explained Justice Gajendragadkar in a seminal Supreme Court judgment.
The hierarchy established by Article 246 has far-reaching implications for Indian governance. Frequently, issues like education, environmental regulation, and economic policy trigger disputes across government levels.
A notable modern example is the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) in 2017. As taxation was divided between the Union and the States, implementing a unified tax system meant both needed to cede some powers. Parliament enacted the necessary frameworks through special constitutional amendments and supporting laws, with GST falling under the Concurrent List.
The resulting GST Council, a federal body including Union and State finance ministers, embodies Article 246’s spirit—negotiated coordination amid constitutional hierarchy.
Another arena where Article 246 is critical relates to environmental protection. Both central and state governments draft laws on land use, forest management, and pollution control. Since environment appears in the Concurrent List, conflicts often arise—resolved either through negotiated harmonization or by Parliament’s laws taking precedence, unless a State law receives Presidential assent.
Article 246’s centralizing tendencies have been both lauded and critiqued. Advocates argue that national unity, security, and macroeconomic management benefit from robust central authority—especially in areas like counter-terrorism or interstate trade.
However, critics warn about “over-centralization,” especially when Parliament legislates on State List matters through constitutional loopholes (such as under Article 249 or during emergencies). The Sarkaria Commission’s exhaustive review of center-state relations concluded that while India’s diversity demands flexibility, excessive central intervention can undermine local governance.
Regional parties and state governments have, at times, pushed back through legislation, legal challenges, or by lobbying for constitutional amendments. The debates over agricultural reform laws and state-level language policies further highlight the dynamic interplay enabled—and constrained—by Article 246.
The judiciary has played a critical role in interpreting Article 246. The “doctrine of pith and substance” is widely used, allowing courts to determine the true nature of legislation rather than solely its stated subject. If the essence of a law falls within an appropriate list, incidental overlaps do not render it unconstitutional.
For instance, in the Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. State of Bihar (1983) case, the Supreme Court clarified that even if State laws incidentally affect matters in the Union List, they can still stand if their core subject is within state competence.
Furthermore, whenever inconsistencies arise between Union and State laws on Concurrent List topics, Parliament’s law prevails unless the State law has Presidential assent. This safeguard ensures both flexibility and unified national policy when warranted.
India’s rapid development, digital transformation, and complex socio-political landscape mean that Article 246 remains a “living” constitutional tool. From technology policies such as data protection (where both Union and State interests are at stake) to disaster management (as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic), the distribution of legislative powers faces new challenges.
The rise of cooperative federalism concepts, especially after 2014, has seen greater emphasis on negotiation, coordination, and joint policymaking—though the underlying constitutional framework still grants the Union a decisive edge in most matters of dispute.
Article 246 of the Indian Constitution is a cornerstone for understanding how laws are made, contested, and harmonized across India’s diverse states and powerful central government. It forms the legal backbone of Indian federalism, balancing central leadership with state flexibility, and evolving to meet new governance challenges. For anyone interested in Indian polity, law, or public policy, grasping Article 246 is essential to decoding how power moves—and how disputes are both sparked and settled—in the Indian republic.
What is Article 246 of the Indian Constitution?
Article 246 defines how legislative powers are distributed between Parliament and State Legislatures through the Union, State, and Concurrent Lists in the Seventh Schedule.
Does Parliament have more power than States under Article 246?
Yes, Parliament generally holds overriding authority, especially on matters in the Union and Concurrent Lists. In case of a direct conflict, Union laws typically prevail.
How do conflicts between State and Union laws get resolved?
Conflicts are usually resolved by giving precedence to Union laws, except when a State law on a Concurrent List subject has received Presidential assent.
Are there any examples of Article 246 in action?
The implementation of GST and debates over environmental laws illustrate how Article 246 is regularly invoked to navigate legislative overlaps and cooperation.
Has Article 246 been criticized?
Some critics argue that it centralizes too much power at the Union level, occasionally at the expense of State autonomy, especially when central laws intrude into State List domains.
How has the Supreme Court influenced the interpretation of Article 246?
The Supreme Court has developed doctrines like “pith and substance” to interpret legislative competence and has often played a decisive role in balancing Union-State relations.
India’s criminal justice system is built upon countless statutes, but few are as frequently invoked—yet…
India stands as the world's largest democracy, a dynamic system underpinned by a deeply embedded…
Social justice sits at the heart of the Indian Constitution, woven into its fabric through…
India’s federal structure, as designed by the framers of the Constitution, anticipates both cooperation and…
Few decisions in Indian judicial history have transformed the interpretation of fundamental rights as profoundly…
In the digital era, internet freedom—and its limits—are fiercely debated across India. Section 67A of…