Article 246(1)

Article 246(1) of the Indian Constitution demarcates the legislative competence of the Union and the states by assigning subjects to the Union List, the State List, or the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule. Enshrined at the moment the Constitution came into force on 26 January 1950, the provision is the cornerstone of India’s quasi‑federal structure, preventing both duplication and conflict in law‑making. Its uniqueness lies in the explicit textual division of powers, a feature that continues to shape inter‑governmental relations more than seven decades later.

Historical Background

The framers of the Constitution, led by Dr B. R. Ambedkar, debated the balance of power between a strong centre and autonomous provinces from 1946 to 1949. The Constituent Assembly adopted the three‑list system on 30 December 1949, drawing inspiration from the United States’ federal model while preserving the parliamentary sovereignty of the British tradition. The final draft reflected compromises on contentious issues such as defence, foreign affairs, and taxation, which were placed unequivocally in the Union List to ensure national coherence.

Text and Mechanism

Article 246(1) reads: “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Parliament may make laws for the whole or any part of India with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the Union List and the Concurrent List; the Legislature of a State may make laws for that State with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List and the Concurrent List.” The Seventh Schedule presently contains 97 Union List items, 66 State List items, and 52 Concurrent List items, each numbered and periodically amended by constitutional amendment. When a law is proposed, the relevant list determines whether the Union, a state, or both may legislate; any overlap is resolved by the hierarchy set out in Articles 254 and 255.

Judicial Interpretation

The Supreme Court first clarified the hierarchy in State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1962), holding that a Union law on a Union List subject prevails even if a state law on the same matter exists. In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Court emphasized that the Concurrent List allows simultaneous legislation but mandates that a Union law supersedes a conflicting state law. More recently, in Centre v. State of Gujarat (2020), the Court upheld the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime as a valid exercise of concurrent legislative power, citing Article 246(1) as the constitutional basis for the GST Council’s joint decision‑making.

Contemporary Relevance

The GST Council, constituted under the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act 2016, exemplifies Article 246(1)’s practical application: the Union and states negotiate tax rates, reflecting the concurrent authority over indirect taxes. The 2020 farm‑laws controversy illustrated the provision’s limits; the Union enacted reforms under the Union List’s “trade and commerce” entry, while several states argued that agriculture falls within the State List, prompting a series of legal challenges that invoked Article 246(1) to test the boundaries of fiscal federalism.

Significance

By allocating exclusive, shared, and residual powers, Article 246(1) sustains a delicate equilibrium that accommodates India’s linguistic, cultural, and economic diversity while preserving national unity. The provision has prevented legislative duplication, facilitated coordinated policy‑making in areas such as environmental regulation and public health, and provided a clear constitutional roadmap for resolving centre‑state disputes, thereby reinforcing the rule of law across the federation.