Discuss the purpose, function and use of Articles 256 and 257 of the Constitution of India. Should these provisions be restructured ? What are the consequences of State's defiance of the directives issued under these Articles by the Union?

Understanding Articles 256 and 257

Article 256 deals with the power of Parliament to legislate with respect to any matter not falling within the State List. It empowers Parliament to enact laws on subjects within the State List if: (a) two or more States request Parliament so to do through a resolution passed by the legislatures of those States; or (b) Parliament declares that the need for legislation has arisen in view of circumstances which, though not contemplated in the provisions, render such legislation necessary. Article 257 deals with the scrutiny of State laws by Parliament. It allows Parliament to examine any law made by a State legislature that falls outside the legislative competence of the State and may deem it void if it exceeds the State’s legislative power.

Purpose and Function

The purpose of these articles is to ensure a degree of uniformity across the country while also respecting the autonomy of States. They represent a compromise between the need for a strong Union and the importance of decentralized governance. Article 256 allows Parliament to legislate on State subjects under specific circumstances, primarily at the request of States. This fosters cooperation and prevents fragmentation. Article 257 acts as a check on State legislatures, preventing them from overstepping their constitutional boundaries.

Use and Evolution

Historically, Article 256 has been invoked relatively infrequently. The most prominent example is the legislation relating to GST (Goods and Services Tax) in 2017, which required constitutional amendments under Article 256 as several states requested the central government to legislate on the subject. Article 257 has been used to scrutinize state laws, though its application is often complex and subject to judicial interpretation. The role of the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, in interpreting these articles and resolving disputes has been significant.

Should these provisions be restructured?

The debate surrounding restructuring these articles is multifaceted. Some argue that Article 256 creates an imbalance, giving excessive power to Parliament and potentially undermining State autonomy. They suggest a more stringent requirement for State requests or a greater emphasis on consensus-building. Others contend that Article 256 is essential for national integration and addressing issues that require uniform policy. Regarding Article 257, concerns have been raised about its potential for political manipulation and its impact on State legislative sovereignty. A potential restructuring could involve:

• Increased State Consultation: Strengthening the process for State requests under Article 256, perhaps requiring a supermajority or a more formal process.
• Judicial Review: Greater emphasis on judicial review of Parliament’s actions under Article 256 to ensure it's based on genuine need and not political expediency.
• Clarification of ‘Legislative Power’: Refining the definition of “legislative power” under Article 257 to reduce ambiguity and potential for disputes.

Consequences of State Defiance

When a State defies directives issued under these articles, the consequences can be significant. Firstly, the State law can be declared void by Parliament under Article 257. Secondly, it can lead to a constitutional crisis and strained Centre-State relations. Thirdly, it can trigger legal challenges in courts, leading to prolonged litigation and uncertainty. The Union's response must be carefully considered to avoid escalating the conflict. While the Union has the power to intervene, it should be exercised with restraint and in accordance with constitutional principles. The 1994 SR Bommai case established that judicial review can be used to examine the constitutionality of actions taken by the Union under these articles, emphasizing the importance of upholding federalism.

Case Study: GST Implementation

The implementation of GST serves as a compelling case study. The process required amendments to the Constitution under Article 256, demonstrating the collaborative nature of Centre-State relations. However, the initial implementation faced challenges, highlighting the complexities of harmonizing diverse State interests and navigating potential conflicts. The success of GST ultimately depended on continued dialogue and cooperation between the Union and the States.

Article	Purpose	Potential Issues
Article 256	Parliament's power to legislate on State subjects	Potential for undermining State autonomy, political manipulation
Article 257	Parliamentary scrutiny of State laws	Potential for political interference, impact on State legislative sovereignty