Federalism in India: Centre and State Legislative Relations

Legislative relations between the Centre and the States are governed by Articles 245 to 255 of the Constitution and the three lists in the Seventh Schedule: Parliament alone legislates on the Union List, State Legislatures on the State List, and both on the Concurrent List. Where a State law clashes with a central law on a Concurrent subject, Article 254 says the central law prevails unless the State law was reserved for and received the President's assent. Courts decide disputes using tests such as pith and substance, and recent Supreme Court decisions on Governors, GST and mining taxes have sharpened how this balance works in 2026.

This explainer is written for B.A. LL.B. and LL.B. students preparing for Constitutional Law papers, and for any citizen who has wondered why a Tamil Nadu Bill can sit with the Governor for months, or why a State cannot simply opt out of a national exam. Once you understand the scheme, most of these news stories become easy to read.

How does the Constitution divide law making power?

Start with Article 246. Its four clauses are short and worth learning almost word for word:

• Clause (1): Parliament has exclusive power to make laws on matters in List I, the Union List, "notwithstanding anything in clauses (2) and (3)".
• Clause (2): Parliament and the State Legislatures both have power over matters in List III, the Concurrent List.
• Clause (3): The State Legislature has exclusive power over List II, the State List, but this is "subject to clauses (1) and (2)".
• Clause (4): Parliament can legislate on any matter, even a State List matter, for territory not included in a State.

The wording itself creates a hierarchy. The Union List comes first, the Concurrent List second, and the State List is subject to both. That is why Indian federalism is often described as having a strong Centre.

Two further provisions complete the basic picture. Article 248 gives Parliament the residuary power: anything not in the State List or Concurrent List belongs to Parliament, including any tax not mentioned in either list. Since the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016, Article 248 opens with the words "Subject to article 246A", because Article 246A now gives both Parliament and the States power to make laws on Goods and Services Tax.

When can Parliament legislate on State List subjects?

The State List is exclusive in normal times, but the Constitution allows Parliament to step in on specific occasions. Learn these as a list, with the conditions:

1. Article 249, national interest: the Rajya Sabha passes a resolution supported by not less than two thirds of members present and voting. The resolution lasts up to one year and can be renewed a year at a time. The law stops working six months after the resolution expires.
2. Article 250, Proclamation of Emergency: Parliament may legislate on any State List matter while the Emergency is in operation. Such a law ceases to have effect six months after the Proclamation ends.
3. Article 252, consent of States: if the legislatures of two or more States pass resolutions asking Parliament to legislate, Parliament can do so for those States, and other States can adopt the law later by resolution. A State cannot then amend or repeal that Act on its own; only Parliament can.
4. Article 253, treaties: Parliament can make laws to implement international treaties, agreements and conventions, even if the subject falls in the State List.

What happens when a State law and a central law conflict?

This is Article 254, and it is the provision examiners love. Clause (1) says that if a State law on a Concurrent List matter is repugnant to a law Parliament is competent to make, or to an existing law, the Parliamentary law prevails, "whether passed before or after" the State law, and the State law is void to the extent of the repugnancy.

Clause (2) is the exception. A State law on a Concurrent subject that conflicts with an earlier central law will prevail in that State if it was reserved for the President's consideration and received assent. The proviso then lets Parliament later add to, amend, vary or repeal that State law.

Tamil Nadu gives you a live example. The Tamil Nadu Admission to Undergraduate Medical Degree Courses Bill, 2021 sought to exempt the State from NEET. According to a LiveLaw report of 15 November 2025, the President's decision to withhold assent was conveyed on 4 March 2025, and the State filed an original suit under Article 131 arguing, among other things, that unexplained refusal defeats the purpose of Article 254(2). If you cite this in an exam, check the current status of the suit before you write, because it may have moved since that report.

Which doctrines do courts use to decide these disputes?

Entries in the three lists often overlap. Courts use a few settled tools to decide which entry a law really belongs to:

• Pith and substance: look at the true nature and character of the law, not its incidental effects. In State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara (1951), the Supreme Court upheld the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 as a law on intoxicating liquors (a provincial subject under the Government of India Act, 1935), even though it incidentally affected the import of liquor, a federal subject.
• Incidental encroachment: a law that is valid in pith and substance is not struck down merely because it touches a subject in another list.
• Repugnancy: applied under Article 254 where both laws are on Concurrent subjects and cannot stand together.
• Extra territorial operation: under Article 245(2), a Parliamentary law is not invalid just because it operates outside India.

What have the recent Supreme Court decisions changed?

Three rulings should be in every answer you write on this topic in 2026.

GST Council: Union of India v. Mohit Minerals (2022)

In May 2022, the Supreme Court held that Parliament and the State Legislatures have simultaneous power to legislate on GST, and that the recommendations of the GST Council are not binding on the Centre or the States but have persuasive value. Students often cite it as a statement of cooperative federalism.

Mining taxes: Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India (2024)

On 25 July 2024, a nine judge Constitution Bench held by an 8:1 majority (Justice B.V. Nagarathna dissenting) that royalty is not a tax and that States can tax mineral lands and mineral rights under Entries 49 and 50 of the State List. A later order of 14 August 2024 allowed States to recover dues from 1 April 2005, without interest or penalty, in instalments over 12 years starting 1 April 2026.

Governors and State Bills: the Tamil Nadu case and the Presidential Reference (2025)

In State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, decided on 8 April 2025 by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, the Court held that Article 200 allows no pocket veto, set aside the reservation of ten re-enacted Bills for the President, and laid down time limits for Governors. For example, a Governor withholding assent against the Council of Ministers' advice had to return the Bill within three months, and a Bill passed again after reconsideration had to receive assent within one month.

The President then sought the Court's opinion under Article 143. On 20 November 2025, a five judge bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai answered that courts cannot impose timelines on the Governor or the President, and that there is no concept of deemed assent. The Governor's options are to assent, to withhold and return the Bill to the Assembly, or to reserve it for the President. However, where there is prolonged, unexplained or indefinite inaction, a court can issue a limited direction asking the Governor to decide within a reasonable time, without examining the merits. Read the two together: the April 2025 timelines are no longer the position to state as current law.

What about the Madras High Court?

Most of the leading decisions on legislative competence come from the Supreme Court, because Centre and State disputes often reach it directly under Article 131 or in appeal. The Madras High Court regularly decides competence challenges to Tamil Nadu laws, but I have not cited a specific Madras High Court judgment here because I could not verify one against an official record for this piece. Students should search the court's own judgment portal for recent rulings on Tamil Nadu statutes before relying on any summary.

How should you write about this in an exam?

A student in Nagercoil facing a ten mark question on Article 254 can use a simple structure:

1. Open with Article 246 and the three lists in two or three lines.
2. Quote the key words of Article 254(1): "whether passed before or after" and "to the extent of the repugnancy, be void".
3. Explain the Article 254(2) exception and its proviso.
4. Apply one doctrine with one case, for example pith and substance with Balsara.
5. End with a current example: the NEET Bill suit, or the 2025 Presidential Reference on Governors.

Examiners reward correct article numbers and a recent case far more than long paragraphs on the general idea of federalism. If you are working on a moot or clinic project on a Tamil Nadu law, our law programmes page lists where Constitutional Law sits in the syllabus.

Sources

• Constitution of India: Article 246: text of the provision dividing power across the three lists.
• Constitution of India: Article 254: text of the repugnancy rule and the Presidential assent exception.
• Constitution of India: Article 248: text of the residuary power, as amended in 2016.
• Constitution of India: Article 249: the Rajya Sabha resolution route and its time limits.
• Constitution of India: Article 252: legislation by consent of two or more States.
• LiveLaw: Tamil Nadu suit on the NEET exemption Bill: report of 15 November 2025 on the Article 131 suit.
• Supreme Court Observer: Mineral Area Development Authority v. SAIL: case page with the 2024 judgment and the order on retrospective dues.
• Verdictum: State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu: report of the 8 April 2025 judgment on Article 200.
• LiveLaw: Presidential Reference on assent to Bills: report of the 20 November 2025 opinion.
• Bar and Bench: Union of India v. Mohit Minerals: report of the 2022 ruling on GST Council recommendations.