Introduction
Under Part XI (Articles 245–255) of the Constitution of India, a dual legislative framework establishes law-making competencies for both Parliament and State Legislatures. While State Legislatures possess plenary authority within their assigned domain, the constitutional architecture is characterized by a distinct Union tilt designed to safeguard national integrity and unity.
Scope of Law-Making Power of State Legislatures
The law-making competence of State Legislatures is defined primarily through territorial limits and subject-matter demarcation under the Seventh Schedule.
- Territorial Scope (Article 245(1)): A State Legislature is empowered to make laws for the whole or any part of the State. It lacks general extraterritorial reach unless a real and substantial nexus exists between the state and the object of legislation (State of Bombay v. RMD Chamarbaugwala).
- Subject-Matter Competence (Article 246(3)): State Legislatures exercise exclusive legislative authority over items enumerated in List II (State List), comprising 61 subjects including public order, police, and public health. They also exercise shared competence over 52 entries in List III (Concurrent List).
- Constitutional Restraints: The legislative power of states remains subordinate to Fundamental Rights (Part III), the basic structure doctrine, and executive controls via gubernatorial reservation of bills under Article 200.
Key Distinctions: State Legislature vs. Parliament
While both institutions derive their power directly from the Constitution, parliamentary authority supersedes state competence across several critical dimensions:
- Extraterritorial Competence: Under Article 245(2), no law made by Parliament can be deemed invalid on the grounds of extraterritorial operation, provided there is a nexus to Indian interests (GVK Industries v. ITO). State Legislatures strictly lack this broad extraterritorial authority.
- Residuary Powers: Under Article 248 and Entry 97 of List I, residuary legislative powers rest exclusively with Parliament. State Legislatures possess only enumerated powers and have no claim over unlisted subjects.
- Primacy in the Concurrent Sphere: By virtue of Article 254(1), when a State law conflicts with a Parliamentary law on a Concurrent List item, the Union law prevails. A State law can only prevail over an earlier Parliamentary law if it receives Presidential assent under Article 254(2).
- Union Incursions into the State List: Parliament can legislate on List II subjects under exceptional conditions: in the national interest via Rajya Sabha resolution (Article 249), during a Proclamation of Emergency (Article 250), with the consent of two or more states (Article 252), or to implement international treaties (Article 253). States possess no reciprocal competence over List I.
- Executive Veto Mechanisms: State enactments are subject to Union oversight through Articles 200 and 201, where Governors can reserve State bills for Presidential assent. In contrast, the states possess no institutional veto over central legislation.
Conclusion
Federalism is an established facet of the basic structure as affirmed in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India. Preserving the legislative autonomy of states demands institutional neutrality from Governors and adherence to consultative federalism, as recommended by the Sarkaria Commission, to maintain constitutional balance.