According to article 1 of the constitution, India is a “union” of states, which means a federation of states.[1] Federation is complex governmental system wherein there is distancing between the centre and various autonomous regions, known as state Government of India.[2] The power to legislate is imparted to both these bodies, with respect to certain jurisdictional barriers. The parliament is empowered to form legislations for the whole of India under article 245(1), the state government’s power to legislate is restricted to the state itself. The Articles 245, 246 and 254 talks about the parliament’s power to legislate. The subjects are delegated in three lists, namely the Union List, includes subjects on which the Centre has exclusive right to form laws, the State List wherein the state has the power to form laws and the Concurrent List which includes subjects where both the Centre and State can make legislations, often skirmishes arise when a body has framed law on a subject which is out of its jurisdiction or which clashes with those of the state. Certain precedents have been set up for such issues where in the centre makes laws on subjects which are present in the state list. The question is to test the competence or repugnance of such laws or ‘does a legislature have the power to enact this law’ with ‘does this law clash with a law formed by another legislature’. Certain landmark judgements pertaining to the Centre-State relations jotted down:

a)      Rameshwar Prasad v Union of India,[3] is a landmark case, in this the Supreme Court reviewed the constitutional validity of the centre’s decision of dissolution of Bihar State Legislative Assembly and the validity of the proclamation of President’s Rule under Article 356 of the Constitution. This situation arose because in the State Elections of Bihar in 2005 a fractured verdict was delivered, which resulted the Governor recommending an Emergency in the State. Subsequently, political shuffles ensued between parties and the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) claimed to have the requisite numbers to form a Government. The Governor, however, wrote to the President informing him that financial incentives had made politicians switch their support, and then submitted a final report to the President recommending dissolution of the assembly.[4]  The court’s verdict was, that the dissolution of a state assembly and a proclamation of President’s Rule is unconstitutional, it also said the court has the power to restore a dissolved assembly of any state by the appropriate measures. The court in its verdict stated that an assembly is ‘duly constituted’ when the election commission declared the names, as per Section 73 of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951. This judgement highlights how an executive and legislation comes into existence after an election.

b)      In State of Rajasthan v Union of India[5], initially a question arose in Rao Birinder Singh v Union of India[6], whether the right to declare emergency under Article 356 is with the executive branch of the government and could it be judicially scrutinised. The court in this case held that, courts have no jurisdiction to ask for review of material on which the president has depended his reasons or ‘satisfaction’.

Similarly, in State of Rajasthan v Union of India, the court unanimously declared that the power under Article 356 is out of the scope of review. The court reasoned that any such proclamation of emergency could either be a ‘preventive or a curative action’,[7] so the satisfaction attained would be subjective in nature and could not be assessed through any tests. The court also concluded that the centre can give directions to the state if it is of the opinion that the state government are acting in ways which contravene the provisions of law.

c)      The S.R. Bommai v Union of India [8] case is a very important case, herein the apex court decided the extent and scope of judicial review of president’s reasoning for Proclamation of Emergency under Article 356. It was decided that the power granted by the said article is reviewable on various grounds, such as whether the data provided to the president by the cabinet is relevant and the reasoning for proclamation was justified and not made in bad faith. The court also decide that such proclamation is subject to review so as to ensure that they do not violate the basic structure of the constitution. further such review is permissible and pertinent because if a state has followed the provision in the constitution and there is no probable reason of any proclamation of emergency, it is not justifiable to proclaim on just because there is different political party at centre that at the state.

d)      In U.N.R. Rao v Indira Gandhi[9], the question before the court was whether an executive government could exist even after the dissolution of the legislature. The court interpreted the language of Article 74(1), which states that there “shall” be a council of ministers which assist the president, this council will remain in office even after the dissolution of the legislators or Lok Sabha. The court reasoned that in case of approaching article 74 as merely directory and switching the word “shall” with “may”, it would mean as the president acting independently without any aid from the council of ministers. therefore, even if the Lok Sabha is dissolved a parliamentary form of government requires that a democratically elected branch is present to advise the president.

e)      In Samsher Singh v State of Punjab[10], the issue under question was the Governor’s power which enables him to recruit persons to the judicial services, conferred under Article 234 of the Constitution of India. The contention of the petitioners was that the Governor should act in their personal capacity instead of relying on the aid and advise of the Council of Ministers. Since India follows the example of United Kingdom which is a Parliamentary Form of Government, this implies that the Governor or President is only a nominal head and the real power vests in the prime minister. Hence, it was decided that the Governor should take the advice of the Council before deciding on matters.

f)       In Ram Jawaya Kapur v State of Punjab[11],  this followed the verdict of Samsher Singh, it held that the before the executive can perform its duties it must have the confidence of the legislature and that executive action takes place subject to the control and authority of the legislature.[12]

g)      The Additional District Magistrate Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla[13], is a very important case, and has been mentioned in many publications, a very crucial precedent for the courts. This was filed in the backdrop of 1975 Proclamation of Emergency, after certain individuals were detained under Maintenance of Internals Security Act, 1971, filed for an issuance of a writ of habeas corpus in several high courts. The proclamation of 1975 had suspended Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution. Therefore the 1975 Presidential Order was ‘unconditional’, that is, it suspended appeal without reference to any particular statute, leaving the High Courts no standard against which to evaluate detentions.[14] The High Court said that they were empowered to assess the rightness of the detention orders on the grounds of ‘internal disturbance’ therefore, the court decided that ‘no person has any locus standi to move any writ petition under Article 226 before a High Court for habeas corpus or any other writ or order or direction to challenge the legality of an order of detention on the ground that the order is not under or in compliance with the Act or is illegal or is vitiated by mala fides factual or legal or is based on extraneous consideration’[15].  

h)      In Minerva Mills v Union of India[16], this case was subsequent to the ADM Jabalpur case and it received a similar verdict. The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of legislation passed by the 1976 Parliament, on the grounds that its life had been extended by Proclamations that were unreasonably prolonged (the 1971 Proclamation) or mala fide (the 1975 Proclamation).[17] Confronted with the Attorney General’s claim that a Proclamation was not justiciable because ascertaining whether the country faced a grave emergency was a ‘political question’, PN Bhagwati J responded that it would be improper for the Court to decline to investigate whether the President had failed to abide by the provisions of Article 352.[18]

i)       In Rameshwar Oraon v State of Bihar and Ors.[19], the court held that the State Governments have to necessarily act according to the direction they have given by the Central Government.

j)       In State of Karnataka v Union of India & Another[20], the court stated that the Central Government has the power to give direction to the State Government, doing so not because of geographical or territorial unit reason but because they are constitutionally or legally empowered to do so.

The abovementioned cases are related to various issues that have arisen between the centre and states, the judgements given are not necessarily correct, such as the ADM Jabalpur case and the Minerva Mills case, the obiter has been changed in later cases after much debate and deliberations. These cases have been uses time and again for reference and are some of the very notable pieces of judgements given in the legal history.