GS Notes

17. Polity Notes 33

23 min read

Elaborate Notes

Special Category Status (SCS)

Special Category Status (SCS) is a classification granted by the Centre to assist in the development of states that face significant geographical and socio-economic disadvantages.

  • Historical Genesis: The concept of providing special assistance to certain states originated from the need to address developmental imbalances. Hilly and strategically important states argued that a one-size-fits-all approach to financial devolution was inadequate for their unique challenges.

    • The Fifth Finance Commission in 1969 formalized this by recommending a mechanism for preferential treatment. This led to the creation of the Gadgil Formula, named after the then Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission, D.R. Gadgil. This formula determined the allocation of central assistance to states, with a portion set aside for those designated as ‘Special Category’.
    • Initially, in 1969, three states were granted SCS: Jammu & Kashmir, Assam, and Nagaland. Subsequently, eight more states were added to the list.

  • Criteria for Granting SCS: The Planning Commission (and its successor, the National Development Council) laid down five key criteria for a state to qualify for SCS:

    1. Difficult and Hilly Terrain: States with challenging topography face higher costs for infrastructure development and service delivery.
    2. Low Population Density and/or a Sizable Share of Tribal Population: These factors often correlate with lower levels of economic activity and social development.
    3. Strategic Location along International Borders: States bordering other countries bear additional responsibilities and security concerns.
    4. Economic and Infrastructural Backwardness: A general indicator of a state’s underdeveloped condition.
    5. Non-viable Nature of State Finances: States with an unsustainable revenue deficit, indicating a weak resource base and high expenditure needs.

  • Benefits of SCS: The status confers significant financial advantages:

    • Favourable Sharing Pattern in Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS): For normal states, the Centre-State funding ratio for CSS is typically 60:40 or 70:30. For SCS states, this ratio is overwhelmingly favourable at 90:10, meaning the Centre bears 90% of the cost.
    • Fiscal Concessions: To attract private investment, SCS states are offered a package of concessions, including exemptions from customs duty, excise duty (now subsumed under GST, but specific incentives may continue), income tax, and corporate tax for a specified period.
    • Preferential Financial Treatment: A significant portion (30%) of the Centre’s Gross Budgetary Support was earmarked for SCS states. Unspent funds in a financial year do not lapse and are carried forward, unlike for general category states.
    • Debt Relief and Soft Loans: The Centre may offer debt-swapping schemes and loans at very low-interest rates to ease the financial burden on these states.

  • The Andhra Pradesh Case and the Role of the 14th Finance Commission:

    • During the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh in 2014, the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, did not explicitly grant SCS. However, the then Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, promised it on the floor of the Parliament to compensate for the loss of Hyderabad, which contributed nearly 70% of the undivided state’s revenue.
    • The succeeding government declined to grant SCS. The primary reason cited was the recommendation of the 14th Finance Commission (Chairman: Y.V. Reddy, 2015-2020). The commission recommended increasing the share of states in the divisible pool of central taxes from 32% to 42%. It argued that this “horizontal devolution” would provide all states with more fiscal space, thereby obviating the need for SCS. It suggested that resource gaps could be addressed through specific grants.
    • This has led to a persistent political demand from Andhra Pradesh and other states like Bihar, Odisha, and Rajasthan for SCS.

Inter-State Water Disputes

Inter-state water disputes are conflicts between two or more states over the use, distribution, and control of waters of an inter-state river or river valley.

  • Geographical and Historical Context (North vs. South):

    • Geography: Southern rivers are largely peninsular, rain-fed, and seasonal, making water a scarce resource during dry months. Their course, often through plateaus and valleys, is more conducive to dam construction (vertical flow). Northern rivers are largely perennial, fed by Himalayan glaciers and monsoon rains, making them less prone to scarcity. Their flow across vast plains (horizontal flow) makes large-scale water storage more challenging and less conflict-prone in the same manner.
    • History: During the British Raj, irrigation infrastructure was developed extensively in areas under direct British control, like the Madras and Bombay Presidencies. The 1892 agreement between the Madras Presidency and the princely state of Mysore regarding the Cauvery river is a classic example of a pre-independence dispute that laid the groundwork for future conflicts. Post-independence, the linguistic reorganisation of states created new administrative boundaries that cut across natural river basins, institutionalizing the potential for disputes. The Green Revolution (late 1960s), which promoted water-intensive crops like rice and wheat through Minimum Support Price (MSP), drastically increased agricultural water demand, particularly in states like Punjab, Haryana, Tamil Nadu, and Karnataka, thereby intensifying these conflicts.

  • Constitutional Provisions and Mechanisms:

    • Entry 17 of the State List deals with water, but this is subject to Entry 56 of the Union List, which empowers the Union government to regulate inter-state rivers if deemed expedient in the public interest.
    • Article 262: This is the core constitutional provision. It empowers Parliament to enact a law for the adjudication of disputes relating to inter-state rivers. Crucially, Clause (2) of Article 262 states that Parliament may by law provide that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute.
    • Enacted Laws: Under Article 262, Parliament has enacted two key laws:
      1. The River Boards Act, 1956: To enable the establishment of river boards for the regulation and development of inter-state rivers. However, no river board has been constituted under this act to date.
      2. The Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956: This act allows the central government to set up an ad-hoc tribunal to adjudicate a dispute when a state government requests it. The tribunal’s award is final and binding on the parties.
    • Role of the Supreme Court: Despite the bar under Article 262(2), the Supreme Court has held that it can hear appeals against tribunal awards under its Special Leave Petition (SLP) jurisdiction under Article 136. The Court has also intervened in matters of implementation of the awards. For example, in the Cauvery water dispute, the Supreme Court has repeatedly intervened to ensure the implementation of the tribunal’s orders.

  • Ecological and Economic Dimensions:

    • The Mihir Shah Committee (2016) highlighted India’s extreme inefficiency in water use. It pointed out that India, with 18% of the world’s population, has only 4% of its freshwater resources and uses only a fraction of its rainfall effectively.
    • Prevailing agricultural practices like flood irrigation are highly wasteful. The promotion of water-intensive crops in water-scarce regions (e.g., sugarcane in Maharashtra, paddy in Punjab) due to MSP and subsidies exacerbates the problem.
    • The policy of providing free or heavily subsidized electricity for agriculture leads to over-extraction of groundwater, further stressing the water system.

Emergency Provisions

Emergency provisions in the Indian Constitution (Part XVIII, Articles 352-360) are designed to enable the central government to deal with abnormal situations effectively.

  • Article 352: National Emergency:

    • Grounds: The President can proclaim a National Emergency when the security of India or a part of it is threatened by (a) war, (b) external aggression, or (c) armed rebellion. The term ‘armed rebellion’ was substituted for ‘internal disturbance’ by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978. This was done to prevent the kind of misuse seen during the 1975-77 emergency, which was imposed on the vague grounds of ‘internal disturbance’.
    • Approval and Duration: The proclamation must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within one month by a special majority (majority of the total membership of the house and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting). Once approved, it continues for six months and can be extended indefinitely with parliamentary approval every six months.
    • Judicial Review: Initially considered non-justiciable, the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) case held that a proclamation of national emergency can be challenged in court on the ground of mala fides.
    • Impact on Fundamental Rights:
      • Article 358: On proclamation of emergency due to war or external aggression, Article 19 is automatically suspended.
      • Article 359: The President can, by order, suspend the right to move any court for the enforcement of other Fundamental Rights, except for Articles 20 and 21. This protection for Articles 20 and 21 was added by the 44th Amendment, correcting a major flaw exposed during the 1975 emergency, as highlighted in the ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) case.

  • Article 356: President’s Rule (State Emergency):

    • Grounds: It can be imposed if the President is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of a state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. This satisfaction can be based on a report from the Governor or otherwise. Article 365 also provides a ground: if a state fails to comply with any direction from the Centre.
    • Misuse and Judicial Safeguards: Article 356 has been one of the most controversial provisions, often accused of being used for political purposes by the central government. The landmark judgment in S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) laid down strict guidelines to prevent its misuse:
      • The President’s satisfaction is subject to judicial review.
      • The state assembly should not be dissolved immediately but only be kept in suspended animation until Parliament approves the proclamation.
      • The majority of the government must be tested on the floor of the House, not in the subjective opinion of the Governor.
      • The Centre must provide reasons and materials justifying the imposition of President’s Rule.
    • Commissions like the Sarkaria Commission (1988) and the Punchhi Commission (2010) have recommended that Article 356 should be used only as a last resort in exceptional circumstances.

Prelims Pointers

  • Special Category Status (SCS):

    • Initially recommended by the Fifth Finance Commission (1969).
    • Based on the Gadgil Formula.
    • Criteria include: Hilly terrain, low population density/tribal population, strategic border location, economic backwardness, non-viable finances.
    • Number of SCS states: 11 (Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Himachal Pradesh, J&K, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, Tripura, Uttarakhand).
    • Benefit for Centrally Sponsored Schemes: Centre-State funding is 90:10.
    • The 14th Finance Commission recommended increasing tax devolution to states to 42% and suggested that SCS is no longer necessary.

  • Inter-State Water Disputes:

    • Article 262: Empowers Parliament to provide for the adjudication of inter-state water disputes.
    • Parliament can restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other courts over such disputes.
    • Acts passed under Article 262: River Boards Act, 1956 and Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956.
    • The Supreme Court can hear appeals against tribunal awards under Article 136 (Special Leave Petition).
    • Pattiseema Lift Irrigation Project links the Godavari and Krishna rivers.
    • The Mihir Shah Committee (2016) recommended restructuring the Central Water Commission (CWC) and Central Ground Water Board (CGWB).

  • Emergency Provisions:

    1. National Emergency (Article 352):
      • Grounds: War, External Aggression, Armed Rebellion.
      • The term ‘Armed Rebellion’ was added by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978, replacing ‘Internal Disturbance’.
      • Parliamentary approval required within one month by a special majority.
      • Revocation can be done by the President or if the Lok Sabha passes a resolution with a simple majority.
      • Fundamental Rights under Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended.
      • Article 19 is suspended only in case of war or external aggression (Article 358).
    2. President’s Rule (Article 356):
      • Grounds: Failure of constitutional machinery in a state.
      • Also can be imposed under Article 365 for failure to comply with central directions.
      • Parliamentary approval required within two months by a simple majority.
      • The S.R. Bommai case (1994) is a landmark judgment that imposed restrictions on its misuse.
    3. Financial Emergency (Article 360):
      • Ground: Threat to the financial stability or credit of India.
      • Has never been imposed in India to date.

Mains Insights

  • Special Category Status: Tool for Development or Political Bargaining?

    • Argument for SCS: It acts as a form of affirmative action for states that are historically and geographically disadvantaged. The difficult terrain and lack of economic opportunities necessitate central support to bring them on par with other states, thus upholding the principle of balanced regional development.
    • Argument Against SCS: It can create a dependency culture, discouraging states from improving their own fiscal health and resource mobilization (e.g., reluctance to tax agricultural income or rationalize subsidies). The 14th FC’s argument for higher tax devolution is based on empowering all states rather than a select few, promoting cooperative federalism.
    • Debate: The controversy around SCS highlights the tension between the principles of equity (differentiated treatment) and efficiency (uniform fiscal federalism). Its use has often become a political tool for parties to promise during elections, leading to what is termed “competitive sub-nationalism” where states lobby for special treatment.

  • Inter-State Water Disputes: A Failure of Constitutional Mechanisms?

    • Cause-Effect Analysis:
      • Cause: Linguistic reorganization cutting across river basins, the political economy of agriculture (MSP for water-guzzling crops), populist policies (free power/water), and climate change-induced water stress.
      • Effect: Protracted legal battles, politicization of a technical issue, strained inter-state relations, and failure to implement long-term sustainable water management policies.
    • Critique of the Tribunal System: The ad-hoc nature of tribunals has led to extreme delays (the Cauvery tribunal took 17 years, Ravi-Beas over 30 years). Their awards are often challenged and not implemented for years, requiring frequent Supreme Court intervention. This points to a failure of the mechanism envisaged under Article 262 to provide a speedy and final resolution. The Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill, 2019, which proposes a single, permanent tribunal with benches and strict timelines, is a potential solution.
    • Way Forward: The solution lies beyond legal mechanisms. It requires a paradigm shift from a supply-side approach (building more dams) to a demand-side management approach (improving water use efficiency via micro-irrigation, changing cropping patterns, and pricing water rationally). This links directly to SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation).

  • Article 356 and its Impact on Federalism

    • Erosion of State Autonomy: Frequent and politically motivated use of Article 356 undermines the federal structure of the Constitution. It reduces democratically elected state governments to the mercy of the central government, going against the spirit of cooperative federalism.
    • Role of Judiciary as a check: The evolution of judicial review, culminating in the S.R. Bommai judgment, has been a critical check on the arbitrary exercise of this power. The judiciary has reinforced the idea that federalism is a part of the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution and cannot be diluted.
    • Sarkaria and Punchhi Commission Recommendations: Both high-level commissions on Centre-State relations strongly advised that Article 356 should be a “dead letter,” used only in the rarest of rare cases, such as a complete breakdown of constitutional machinery. They suggested exhausting all other alternatives before invoking it, thereby strengthening federal principles.

Previous Year Questions

Prelims

  1. If a particular area is brought under the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India, which one of the following statements best reflects the consequence of it? (2022) (a) This would prevent the transfer of land of tribal people to non-tribal people. (b) This would create a local self-governing body in that area. (c) This would convert that area into a Union Territory. (d) The State having such areas would be declared a Special Category State. Answer: (a)

    • Explanation: The most significant provision of the Fifth Schedule is the protection it provides to the land of tribal communities, preventing alienation to non-tribals. While it also involves the establishment of a Tribes Advisory Council, option (a) is the most direct and crucial consequence. It has no direct relation to the declaration of a Special Category State.

  2. Consider the following statements: (2021)

    1. The Governor of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is appointed by the Central Government.
    2. Certain provisions in the Constitution of India give the Central Government the right to issue directions to the RBI in the public interest.
    3. The Governor of the RBI draws his power from the RBI Act. Which of the above statements are correct? (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 1 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3 Answer: (c)
    • Explanation: Statement 2 is incorrect. The power of the Central Government to issue directions to the RBI comes from Section 7 of the RBI Act, 1934, not directly from the Constitution. This question, while not directly on emergency, relates to the Centre’s power to issue directions, similar in spirit to Article 365.

  3. With reference to the funds under Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS), which of the following statements are correct? (2020)

    1. MPLADS funds must be used to create durable assets like physical infrastructure for health, education, etc.
    2. A specified portion of each MP’s fund must benefit SC/ST populations.
    3. MPLADS funds are sanctioned on a yearly basis and the unused funds cannot be carried forward to the next year.
    4. The District Authority must inspect at least 10% of all works under implementation every year. Select the correct answer using the code given below: (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 3 and 4 only (c) 1, 2 and 4 only (d) 1, 3 and 4 only Answer: (c)
    • Explanation: Statement 3 is incorrect. MPLADS funds are non-lapsable. This principle of non-lapsable funds is a key feature of the financial benefits given to Special Category States.

  4. What is the provision to safeguard the autonomy of the Supreme Court of India? (2021 - Rephrased for relevance)

    1. While appointing the Supreme Court Judges, the President of India has to consult the Chief Justice of India.
    2. The Supreme Court Judges can be removed by the Chief Justice of India only.
    3. The salaries of the Judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India to which the legislature does not have to vote.
    4. All appointments of officers and staff of the Supreme Court of India are made by the Government only after consulting the Chief Justice of India. Select the correct answer using the code given below. (a) 1 and 3 only (b) 3 and 4 only (c) 4 only (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4 Answer: (a)
    • Explanation: This relates to the judiciary’s role in upholding the constitution, including arbitrating disputes (like water disputes) and checking executive overreach (like in Article 356 cases). Statement 1 and 3 are correct safeguards for judicial autonomy. Statement 2 is incorrect (removal is by President after a parliamentary motion). Statement 4 is incorrect (appointments are made by the CJI).

  5. Which one of the following in Indian polity is an essential feature that indicates that it is federal in character? (2021) (a) The independence of the judiciary is safeguarded. (b) The Union Legislature has elected representatives from constituent units. (c) The Union Cabinet can have elected representatives from regional parties. (d) The Fundamental Rights are enforceable by Courts of Law. Answer: (a)

    • Explanation: An independent judiciary is the ultimate arbiter of disputes between the Centre and States, which is the hallmark of a federal system. It interprets the constitution and ensures neither level of government encroaches upon the other’s domain. This is critical in cases related to Article 356 and inter-state disputes.

Mains

  1. Discuss the rationale for the 14th Finance Commission’s recommendations on fiscal federalism, and analyze its impact on the relevance of ‘Special Category Status’ for states. (2023 - adapted)

    • Answer Framework:
      • Introduction: Briefly explain the concept of fiscal federalism and the role of the Finance Commission under Article 280. Mention the shift advocated by the 14th FC.
      • Body:
        • Rationale of 14th FC: Explain the commission’s philosophy of empowering states by increasing the untied funds. Detail its key recommendation of increasing the states’ share in the divisible pool from 32% to 42%. Explain how this move was aimed at promoting cooperative federalism and giving states more autonomy in spending.
        • Impact on SCS: Argue that the 14th FC’s recommendations effectively made the SCS framework redundant from a purely financial perspective. The commission argued that the enhanced devolution would cover the revenue gaps of all states, including the erstwhile SCS states. Explain how the Centre has used this recommendation to deny SCS to new claimants like Andhra Pradesh and Bihar.
        • Counter-arguments/Continuing Relevance: Discuss why states still demand SCS. Argue that SCS is not just about filling revenue gaps but also about non-financial benefits like industrial concessions and a 90:10 funding pattern for CSS, which are not covered by higher tax devolution. Mention the unique geographical and historical disadvantages that persist.
      • Conclusion: Conclude that while the 14th FC’s approach has strengthened fiscal federalism, the debate over SCS highlights the ongoing tension between a formula-based, uniform approach and a needs-based, differential approach to support disadvantaged states.

  2. The Inter-State river water disputes are on the rise. Do you think the existing constitutional-legal framework is adequate to resolve these disputes amicably? Critically examine. (2022 - adapted)

    • Answer Framework:
      • Introduction: Start by mentioning the increasing frequency and intensity of inter-state water disputes (e.g., Cauvery, Mahanadi, Krishna) and link it to factors like climate change and rising demand.
      • Body:
        • Existing Framework: Detail the constitutional provisions (Article 262) and the legal mechanisms (Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, and the system of ad-hoc tribunals).
        • Analysis of Inadequacies: Critically examine why this framework has been inadequate.
          • Procedural Delays: Tribunals take decades to give awards.
          • Lack of Implementation: No time limit for notifying the award; states often defy the awards, leading to further litigation.
          • Politicization: Disputes are used for political mobilization, making amicable settlement difficult.
          • Lack of Data: Absence of a comprehensive, real-time water data repository that is acceptable to all states.
          • Judicial Overreach?: Despite the bar in Art 262, the Supreme Court’s frequent intervention (under Art 136) indicates the failure of the tribunal system.
        • Suggested Reforms: Mention the Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill, 2019, proposing a single permanent tribunal. Discuss the need for a basin-wide approach, promoting water-use efficiency, and shifting focus from conflict resolution to cooperative management.
      • Conclusion: Conclude that the existing framework has proven to be inadequate due to procedural flaws and a lack of political will. A holistic approach combining legal reforms with cooperative federalism and sustainable water management practices is the need of the hour.

  3. To what extent, in your view, has the S.R. Bommai case (1994) judgment by the Supreme Court curtailed the arbitrary use of Article 356 by the central government? Discuss with examples. (2021 - adapted)

    • Answer Framework:
      • Introduction: Briefly introduce Article 356 as one of the most controversial provisions of the Constitution and mention its frequent misuse in the pre-1994 era.
      • Body:
        • Pre-Bommai Era: Describe the situation before the judgment, where Article 356 was used over 100 times, often on flimsy political grounds to dismiss opposition-ruled state governments.
        • Provisions of the S.R. Bommai Judgment: Detail the key principles laid down by the court:
          • President’s Rule is subject to judicial review.
          • The burden of proof lies with the Centre to show materials justifying the proclamation.
          • The floor of the assembly is the only place to test a government’s majority.
          • The state assembly cannot be dissolved until Parliament approves the proclamation.
        • Impact of the Judgment (Curtailment): Analyze how the judgment has acted as a significant deterrent. The frequency of using Article 356 has drastically reduced post-1994. Cite examples where the Centre has been more cautious (e.g., in recent political crises in various states).
        • Limitations/Continued Challenges: Discuss instances where the spirit of the judgment has been allegedly violated, for example, through the role of the Governor in government formation or by recommending President’s rule without a floor test (e.g., Arunachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand cases in 2016, though later revoked by the SC).
      • Conclusion: Conclude that the S.R. Bommai judgment has been a watershed moment in Indian federalism, transforming the political-question doctrine into a justiciable matter and significantly curtailing the blatant misuse of Article 356. However, vigilance is still required to uphold its spirit against subtler forms of political maneuvering.

  4. Though the federal principle is dominant in our Constitution and that principle is one of its basic features, it is equally true that federalism under the Indian Constitution leans in favour of a strong Centre. This is a feature that militates against the concept of strong federalism. Discuss. (2020 - adapted)

    • Answer Framework:
      • Introduction: Acknowledge the dual nature of the Indian Constitution—federal in structure but unitary in spirit. State that this balance was a deliberate choice by the Constituent Assembly.
      • Body:
        • Federal Features: List the key federal features: dual polity, written constitution, division of powers, supremacy of the constitution, and an independent judiciary.
        • Unitary Bias (Leaning towards a strong Centre): Discuss the provisions that give the Centre an upper hand:
          • Emergency Provisions: Articles 352, 356, and 360 can turn the federal structure into a unitary one.
          • Legislative and Administrative Dominance: Residuary powers with the Centre (Art 248), Parliament’s power to legislate on state subjects (Art 249, 250, 252), and the power to give directions to states (Art 256, 257).
          • Financial Dependence: States’ dependence on the Centre for grants-in-aid and a major share of tax revenue. The role of centrally sponsored schemes.
          • Appointment of Governor: The Governor acts as an agent of the Centre.
        • Analysis - Militating against strong federalism?: Argue that this unitary bias was intended to preserve the unity and integrity of a diverse nation. However, its misuse, particularly of Article 356 and the Governor’s office, does militate against cooperative federalism. Discuss how institutions like the Finance Commission and the GST Council have tried to create a more cooperative framework.
      • Conclusion: Conclude that India is a ‘quasi-federal’ or ‘sui generis’ federal system. While the strong centre was designed for national integrity, its overreach can harm federal relations. The key lies in maintaining a dynamic balance and fostering a culture of cooperative federalism.

  5. From the resolution of contentious issues regarding distribution of legislative powers by the courts, ‘Principle of Federal Supremacy’ and ‘Harmonious Construction’ have emerged. Explain. (2019)

    • Answer Framework:
      • Introduction: Briefly explain the division of legislative powers under the Seventh Schedule (Union, State, and Concurrent Lists) and mention that disputes are inevitable in such a federal setup.
      • Body:
        • Principle of Federal Supremacy:
          • Explain this principle with reference to Article 246 and Article 254.
          • Article 246: Establishes the dominance of the Union List over the State and Concurrent Lists, and the Concurrent List over the State List.
          • Article 254: Deals with repugnancy between a central law and a state law on a subject in the Concurrent List. It states that the central law will prevail.
          • Cite relevant case law where the Supreme Court has upheld the supremacy of Union legislation in case of a direct conflict.
        • Principle of Harmonious Construction:
          • Explain that this is a principle of interpretation used by courts to avoid conflict between different legal provisions. When there is a potential overlap between entries in different lists, the court tries to read them in a way that gives effect to both, as far as possible.
          • The court assumes that Parliament did not intend to create a conflict. The principle is applied to reconcile entries and read them in a complementary manner.
          • Explain the ‘Pith and Substance’ doctrine, which is often used alongside harmonious construction. The court looks at the true nature and character of the legislation to determine which list it falls into.
        • How they resolve contentious issues: Provide an example. For instance, if a state law on ‘public health’ (State List) incidentally touches upon ‘drugs’ (Concurrent List), the court would first try to construe them harmoniously. If a direct and irreconcilable conflict arises, the principle of federal supremacy (Article 254) would apply, and the central law would prevail.
      • Conclusion: Conclude that these two principles are crucial tools used by the judiciary to maintain the federal balance, ensuring that the legislative domains of the Centre and states are respected while upholding the constitutional scheme of federal supremacy in case of unavoidable conflict.

Graph View