5:09 1111 ·

4G
scribd.com

S SCRIBD Sea rch

STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA: A CASE REVIEW

importance to an "agreemen t or compact between states" as an essential characteristic

of federalism. Since such as an agreement was not there in India, it held that India was
not a federal polity. Subsequently, this ruling was overruled and federalism was
recognized as the basic structure of the Constitution in the Kesavnanda Bharti case'
(1973) and reiterated in the SR.Bommai j udgment' (1994).

This case dealt with the issue of the exercise of sovereign powers by the Indian states. The
Supreme Court, in this case, held that the Indian Constitution does not promote a principle
of absolute federalism. The court further outlined four characteristics highlighting the fact
that the lndian Constitution is not a "traditional federal Constitution"
l. Being that there is no provision of separate Constitutions for each State as required
in a federal state. The Constitution of India is the supreme document, which governs
all the states.
2. The Constitution can be altered only by the Union Parliament; whereas the States
have no power to alter it.
3. In contradiction to a federal Constitlllion, the Indian Constitution renders supreme
power upon the Courts to invalidate any action which violates the Constitution.
4. The distribution of powers facilitates local governance by the states and national
policies by the Centre.
The Supreme Court fu11her held that both the legislative and executive power of the States
is subject to the respective supreme powers of the Union meaning that Centre is the
ultimate authority for any issue.The political sovereignty is unevenly distributed between
the Union and the States with greater weightage in favour of the Union. Another reason
which militates against the theo1y of the supremacy of States is that there is no concept of
dual citizenship in India. The learned judges finally concluded that the structure of India
as provided by the Constitution is centralized, with the States occupying a secondary
position vis-a-vis the Centre.

Conversely, .Justice Subba Rao was of the view that under the scheme of the Ind
ian Constitution, sovereign powers are distributed berween the Union and the States
according to their respective spheres. The legislative field of the union legislature is
much wide ranging than that of the State legislative assemblies; the laws passed by
the Parliament should, therefore, have an upper hand over the State laws in case of any
conflict. In a few
2
Keshvananda Bharti V. Union of India; (1973 ) 4 sec255
'SR Bommai v. Union of lndia; AIR 1994 SC 191

SCIJOOL OF LAW & GOVERNANCE [CUSB] 61 P a g e

Home
rn
Books
("'\
0 0
Aud iobooks Documents
 5:Q
9
1111 4G -
scribd.com
=I•
fi S CR I B Searc h

STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. UNION OF INOIA: A CASE REVIEW

time. It is my great privilege to thank my parenl for their constant encouragement throughout my research period.

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
"federaljsm is no ongerlthe fa11ll neilof Centre-State relations bt11 the definjtjon ofa new

partnership of Team India Citizens now baye the ease of mist not the buden of proof and

-NA RENDRA MODI

o importance in Indian jurisprudence for both its unique solution and its application in subsequent cases. In this case the Supreme Court had auached the highest

SCllOOL OF LAW & GOV!RNANCE [CUSBJ 5! P a g e

OJ r'\
0 0
Home Books Audioboo ks Documents
 5:09 1111 ·
4G
scribd.com

S S C R IB D Sea rch

STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. UNION OF JNDIA: A CASE REVIEW

I. Books
2. Websites

er.

, the researcher is providing the descriptions of the existing facts.

tes in India as to carry out their succession to property, assets,rights, liabilities and obligations.

CHAPTER II:CASE SUMMARY

preme Court comprising Chief Justice B.P. Sinha, Justice C. Shah, Justice R. Mudholkar. Justice K. Subba Rao, Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar and Justice Syed Jaff'er Imam.

HOLDIN G OR TH E RATIO DECIDENDI:

n law principle j ustice, equity and good conscience. The case holds that there is no separate Constitution for each State as is required in a federal state. The Constitution is the supreme document, which governs a

SCIIOOL OF LAW & GOVERNANCE [CUSB] 9! P a g e

Home
rn
Books
("'\
0 0
Aud iobooks Documents
 5:Q
9
1111 4G -
scribd.com
=I•
fi S CR I B Searc h

STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. UN ION OF I NOIA: A CASE REVIEW

I
This concept helps the federal strncturc, with its divided ji1risdiction to act in harmony. This basically promotes cooperation by minimizing tension among the various co

Anyhow, irrespective of India being quasi-federal in its functioning and the way it is structured, it still incorporates some of the features which arc csseritial for
arrangement.

RESEA RCH METHODOLO GY

Aims and Objectives: This project aims to analyse the judgement in Stare of West Bengal v. Union of India , the basic principles of sovereign power by the states

Scope and Limitations: The scope of the project extends to analysing the appropriateness of the judgement, its practical implementation in future and if the judici

Sou rces of Data: The whole project is made with the use of secondary source. The following secondary sources of data have been used in the project :

SCI IOOL OF LAW & GOVLRNANCE [CUSB] &!Page

OJ r'\
0 0
Home Books Audioboo ks Documents
5:10 1111 r-= 1•
scribd.co

fi S CR I B D Searc h

STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. UNION OF INOIA: A CASE REVIEW

local governance by the states and national pol icics to be decided by the Centre.
Additionally, as against a federal Constitution, which contains internal checks and balances,
the Indian Constitution renders supreme power upon the courts to invalidate any action

I
violative of the Constitution.
In the result, a decree in favour of the plaintiff as in terms of power on the Union to
acquire the lands owned by the State is ultra vires and the issues I. 2 and 3 are found
against the defendant.

FACTS IN BRIEF:

In this present case the appellant State of West Bengal brought a suit against the Union of
India for a declaration that Parliament is not competent to make a law authorising the Union
Government to acquire land and rights in or over land, which arc vested in a State, and that
Tlte Coal Beori11g Areas (Acq11isi1io11 011d Developme111) A ct (XX of 1957) -which
hereinafter will be referred to as the Act enacted by the Parliament. and particularly ss. 4
and 7' thereof, were ultra vires the legislat ive competence of Parliament, as also for an
injunction restraining the defendant from proceeding under the provisions of these sections
of the Act in respect of the coal bearing lands vested in the plaintiff. The Plaint is founded
on the following allegat ions. The plaintiff is a State, specified in the First Schedule of the
Constitution, as fom1ing part of India' which is a Union of States. Sy virtue of Art. 294"of
the Constitution, all property and assets in West Bengal. wh i ch were vested in his Majesty
for the purposes of the Government of the Province of Bengal became vested in the State of
West Bengal for the purpose of the State. The State of West Bengal, in exercise of its
exclusive legislative powers. enacted the West Be11gal Estates Acquisition Act, 1954 (W.
B. I of 1954).11 Sy notification issued under the Act, as amended. all estates and rights of
intern1ediaries and Ryots vested in the State for the purposes of Government, free from
encumbrances, together with rights in the subsoil, including mines and minerals. The
Parliament enacted the Act authorising the Union of India to acquire any land or any right in
or over land, in any part of India. In exercise of its powers under the Act. the Union of India,
1
The Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act.1957:
https://indiacode.nic.inlbitstream/123456 78911442/I/ I 95720.pd f
• Preliminary notifica1ion respeaing intention 10 prospecl for coal in any area and powers of competent
au1hori1iesthereupon.
'Power 10 acquire land orrights in or over land notified under section 4.
10
Succession to propeny, assets, rights, liabilit i es and oblig111ions in certain cases
11
The Wes1 Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. 1953.
http://www.hooghly.gov.inldllro/pdf/W.B%20E.A%20ACT, 1953.pdf

SCHOOL OF LAW & GOVERNANCE [CUSBJ IO ! P a ge

OJ r'\
0 0
Home Books Audioboo ks Documents
5:10
1111 r-= 1•
scribd.co

fi S C R IB D Searc h

STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. UN ION OF INOIA:A CASE REVIEW

S. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief and if so. what relief/

ARGUEMENTS FROM THE PLAINTIFF:

Advocate-General of Bengal, appearing on the bchalf of state proceeded on the basis that
the Act purported to acquire the interests of the State, and has made his further
submission to the effect that Parliament bad no competence to pass an Act which had the
effect of affecting or acquiring the interest of the State. But later he also took up the
alternative position that the Act, on its true construction, did not affect the interests or

I
property of the State.
Inclined seriously to examine those several ahernativc readings of the sections, similarly the
provisions of s. I0(2)" were pressed in aid of the construction suggested on behalf of the
plaintiff and the other intervening states that the interests of a State Government were not
within the purview of the Act. This argurnent is based on the consideration that if rights or
interests of a State Government were also within the purview of the Act, it would be
meaningless to provide that the Central Govcnunent or a Govcnm1en1 Company, as
contemplated by s. 11,13 should be deemed to be the lessee of the State Government in
respect of the rights acquired. We are unable to accede to this construction. The Act may
have been more artistically drarted but construing it as it is, we have no doubt that
Parliament intended to acquire all rights and interests in coal bearing land with a view to

prospecting for coal and for exploiting coal-bearing mines.

A considerable point was made of the fact in the favour of state that Art. 294 had vested
certain property in the State and it was submitted that subject to the right of the State by
agreement to convey that property under Art. 298,14 the Constitution intended that the State
should continue to be the owner of that property and that this vesting must be held to
negative the Union's right to acquire any property vested in the State without its consent.
Lastly, the historical background of Art. 31"and Entry 42 of List Ill "also does not
bear out the construction that acquisition of a State property is contemplated by the
entry 42 of

"Where <he righ<s under any mining lease I [granted or deemed to have b<'Cn granted by a Stale
Govemmenl) to any peTSOn are acquired under this Act. the Ccn1ral Government shall. on and from the date
of such vesting.be deemed to have become the lessee of the State Government as if a mining lease
under the Mineral Concession Rules had been granted by lhe Stale Government to 1hc Central
Government, 1he period 1hereofbeing the entire period for which such a lease could have been granted by
the Stttle Government under 1hose rules.
11
Power of Central Govemmtnl 10 dire<:t vesting of land orrights in a Government company
14
Power 10 carry on trade, etc.
"[Compulsory acquisition of property.)-Rep. by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, <. 6
(w.e.f. 20·6-1979).
16
Acquisition and requisitioning of property.

SCIIOOL OF LAW & GOVERNANCE [CUSB] 12! P a g e

OJ r'\
0 0
Home Books Audioboo ks Documents
5:Q9 1111 -=I•
scribd.co

fi S CR I B D Searc h

STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA:A CASE REVIEW

cases of legislation where inter-State disputes <1re involved. the sanction of the President is
made mandatory for the validity of those laws.
Further, every State has its judiciary with the State High Court a t the apex. This particular
thing in his opinion of the learned ju dge docs not affect t he federa l principle. He while
arguing this gave the parallel of Australia. Ln Australia. appeals against ccnain decisions of
the High Couns of the Commonwealth of Australia lie with the Privy Council. Thus the
Indian federation cannot be negated on this account. In financial matters, the Union has
more resources at its disposal as compared to the states. Thus. the Union being in charge of
the purse strings can always persuade the States to abide by its advice. The powers vested in
the union in case of national emergencies. internal disturbance or external aggression,
financial crisis, and failure of the Constitutional machinery of the State are all extraordinary
powers in the nature of safety valves to protect the country's future.' The power granted to
the Union to alter the boundaries of the States is also an extraordinary power to meet future
contingencies. Ln their respective spheres, both executive and legislative, the States arc
supreme. In a nutshell, Justice Subba Rao argued that the Union has a bigger role to play
when compared to states and therefore,the Unio11 powers have to supersede the State's.

This minority view provided by Justice Subba Rao, in this case, had consistency with the
federal scheme under the Indian Constitution. The Indian Constitution undoubtedly accepts
the federal concept and distributes the sovereign powers between the coordinate
Constitutional entities,namely, the Union and the States.
India, like Canada,constitutes an asymmetrical federation in the sense that some states
have const itutionally guaranteed prerogatives selling them apart from the other states
of the federation. However, in the case of Lndia. rather unlike Canada, the affording of
special status to a group or territorial entity never came easy.s
Digressing a bit from the general federalism is the concept of Cooperative federalism,which
is another class of a federal structure. This concept originated in the Australian Constitution
as there existed a felt need for a change from competitive to the cooperative relationship in
the working of the federal constitution. This modem view of federation regards federation as
a functional arrangement rather than a mere division of powers between Centre and State.
Cooperative federalism• suggests that the Centre and the States share a horizontal
relationship and not theone in which one is over & above the other.
•https://www.indianfolk.com/wcs.1-bcngal-v-union-india-lcgal-analysis/
s Patrick Hoenig ··federalism and identity in India"
'Aiyer SP. India's emerging cooperative federalism. Indian J Polil Sci 1960;2 I :307.

SCI IOOL OF LAW & GOVL RNANCE [CUSBJ 7! P a g e

OJ r'\
0 0
Home Books Audioboo ks Documents
5:10 1111 4G • '

scribd.co

S S C R IB D Search

STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA: A CASE REVIEW

by two notifications dated September 21, 1959 and Ja1111ary 8, 1960, has expressed its
intention to prospect for coal lying within the lands which are vested in the plaintiff, as
aforesaid. Disputes and differences have arisen between the plaintiff and the defendant as to
the competence of Parliament to enact the Act and its power to acquire the property of the
plaintiff, which is a sovereign authority.

ARGUMENTS:

The defendant (Union of India) states that it is in the public interest that there should be a
planned and rapid industrialization of the country. For such rapid and planned
industrialization , it is essential that the production of coal should be greatly increased as
coal is the basic essential for industries. Regulation of mines and mineral development
under the control of the Union has been declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in
the public interest. It is submitted that in the circumstances, the acquisition of coal bearing
areas by the Union is necessary for the regulation of m ines and mineral development and
for increased production of coal in the public interest. The defendant will rely on documents
a list whereof is hereto annexed.

On those plea d j ogs the fo! lowjng jssues were raised·

ISSUES RAISED:

I. Whether Parliament bas legislative competence to enact a law for compulsory

acquisition by the Union of land and other properties vested in or owned by the State
as alleged in para 8 of the plaint ?
2. Whether the State of West Bengal is a sovereign authority as alleged in para 8 of the
plaint?
3. Whether assuming that the State of West Bengal is a sovereign authority, Parliament
is entitled to enact a law for compulsory acquisition of its lands and properties?
4. Whether the Act or any of its provisions are ultra vircs the legislative competence of
Parliament?

SCI IOOL OF LAW & GOVERNANCE [CUSB] IllP a g e

0 0
Hom Books Audiobooks Documents
e
 DJ
("'\

OJ r'\
0 0
Home Books Audioboo ks Documents
 5:1 1111 4G ·
0
scribd.com

S SCRIBD Search

STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA: A CASE REVIEW

Ryots vested in the State for the purposes of Government,free from encumbrances, together witb rights in the sul>-soil, including mines and minerals. Tbe Parliam
in any part of India.

CHAPTER Ill : POST JlIDGEMENT

DEVELOPMENTS THAT TOOK PLACE POST
.JIJDGEMENT;

0.1 held that the Indian constitution is not truly federal because the states are not coordinate with the union and are not sovereign. In re 1111der Article 143," it characterized the constitution as federal. In the St

Home
rn
Books
("'\
0 0
Aud iobooks Documents
5:1 1111 ·
0 4G
scribd.com

S SCRIBD Sea rch

STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA: A CASE REVIEW

that s. 8 shall not come into operation, and, therefore, no proceed ing; therern1der would
be en1ertai11able.
By Entry 42 in Lisi Ill of the Seventh Schedule to the Constinition read with Art. 246(3)"
power to legislate in respect of acquisition and requisition of property is conferred upon the
Parliament as well as the State Legislatures, Prima facie, this power may be exercised by the
Parliament in respect of all property,privately owned or Stateowned.
This case, therefore proceeded on a different basis altogether, namely, that the entire
le1Titory was directly under the Federal Government and that the Federal Government
could exercise its power of eminent domain in respect of that territory. Nor docs the
22
decision in Kph! y ! J njted States support the defendant. There it was held that the
United States could acquire lands in Cineinnati for a post office and other public
buildings under the power of eminent domain .

JUDGMENT:

This is a suit by the State of West Bengal against the Union of India for a declaration
that Parliament is not competent to make a law authorising the Union Government to
acquire land and rights in or over land, which are vested in a Stale, and that the Coal
Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act (XX of 1957) - which hereinafter
will be referred to as the Act - enacted by the Parliament , and particularly Sections 4
and 7 thereof, were ultra vires the legislative competence of Parl iament, as also for an
injunction restraining the defendant from proceeding under the provisions of these
sections of the Act in respect of tbe coal bearing lands vested in the plaintiff. As will
presently appear, the suit raises questions of great public importance, bearing on the
interpretation of quite a large number of the Articles of the Constitution.

The plaintiff is a State, specified in the First Schedule of the Constitution, as forming
part of India, which is a Union of States. By virtue of Art. 294 of the Constitution, all
property and assets in West Benga l, which were vested in His Majesty for the
purposes of the Government of the Province of Bengal became vested in tbe State of
West Bengal for the purposes of' the State. The State of West Bengal, in exercise of
its exclusive legislative powers, enacted the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act,
1954 (W.B. I of 1954). By notification issued under the Act, as amended, all estates
and rights of intermed iaries and
21
Subject-matter of laws made by Parliament and by the Legislatures of States
"(1875) 23 l.ed. 449

SCIIOOL OF LAW & GOVERNANCE [CUSB] 14 !P a g e

Home
rn
Books
("'\
0 0
Aud iobooks Documents
 5:1 1111 4G ·
0
scribd.com

S S C R IB Sea rch

STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA: A CASE REVIEW

ARGJJEMENTS FROM THE DEFNDA NT;

aid down io the Resolution.

of 22 million tons per annum envisaged, the public sector should produce an additiona l 12 million tons per annum, the balance being allocated to the private industry for production from existing collieries and im

ssee's rights over the coal bearing areas acquired by Government for the additional coal production. It is accordingly considered necessary to take powers by fresh legislation to acquire the lessee's rights over unw

ed under s. 7 as the subject-matter of acquisition. But uoder s. 9-A, tbe Central Government, if it is satisfied that i t is necessary to acquire immediately the whole or any part of the land,or any rights in or over

SCllOOL OF LAW & GOVERNANCE [CUSB] 13 !P a g e

Home
rn
Books
("'\
0 0
Aud iobooks Documents
5:1 1111 4G ·
0
scribd.com

S S C R IB Sea rch

STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA: A CASE REVIEW

than federal. In Satpal v. State of Punjab ,"it express the view that there is combination
of federal structure with unitary feature in tbe Indian constitution. In Jai11 case"held
that India is not a compact of sovereign states which have come together to form a
federation by ceding a part of their sovereignty to the federal State and thus, India
cannot be characterized as a federa l state.

In state of Harytma v. state of Punjab , the apex court discussed the concept of
federation and the federal character of India. It observed in a semi-federal system of
government, which has been adopted under the Indian constitution, all the essential
powers, both legislative and executive have been conferred on the central government.
True federalism means the distribution of powers between a central authority and the
constitution units. In this case, the Supreme Court also held that the decision of one
government relating to governance of a state or its execution would bind the successor
government when it docs not involve any political philosophy. The successor
government must complete the unfinished
job.
In Kuldip Naya r v. U.0./,27 the petitioners challenged the representation of the people
(amendment) Act, 2003 by wh ich the requirement of "domicile" in the state concerned for
getting elected to the Rajya Sabha was deleted, which according to them violated the
principle of federalism, a basic feature of the constitution. The Supreme Court held that it is
no part of federal principle that tbe representatives of the states must belong to that state.
There is no such principle discernible as an essential attribute of federalism. The nature of
federalism in the Indian Constitution is no longer res integra (matter not yet decide). There
can be no quarrel with the proposition that the Indian model is broadly based on a federal
form of governance but with a tilt toward the centre. Under strict federalism, the lower
house ("the people") and the upper house ("Union" of the federation) have equal legislative
and financial powers. However, in the Indian context, strict federalism was not adopted. The
Indian union has been described as the "holding together" of different areas by the
Constitution-framers, unlike the "coming together" of constituent units as in the case of the
USA and the confederation of Canada.

FUTURE APPLICATION OF THE JUPGEMENT IN OTHER CASES:

"119821 1sec12
"(1987 (Suppl.) sec497)
"AIR 2006 SC 3127

SCI IOOL OF LAW & GOVERNANCE [CUSB] l 6! P a g e

Home
rn
Books
("'\
0 0
Aud iobooks Documents
 5:1 1111 4G ·
0
scribd.com

S S C R IB Sea rch

STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA: A CASE REVIEW

CHAPTER IV: CASE ANALYSIS

Observation:
sition and Development) Act, 1957, is not ultra vires the powers of Parliament and is valid. Under Entry 42 of List Ill of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, Parliament is competent to make a law for the acqu
not truly Federal in character. The basis of distribution of

SCHOOL OF LAW & GOVERNANCE [CUSBJ 18! P a g e

Home
rn
Books
("'\
0 0
Aud iobooks Documents
 5:1 1111 4G ·
0
scribd.com

S S C R IB Sea rch

STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA: A CASE REVIEW

es not extend to enacting legislation for depriving the States of property vested in them as sovereign authorities."

hose withheld from both the Union and the States by the ConstitYtion. He •ontinYe<J saying that the legal sovereignty of the In<Jian nation is vested with the people of India and the political

e States so as to render it immune from the exercise of legislative power of the Union Parl iament.

h India has external sovereignty, within India, neither the Union nor the states enjoy absolute internal sovereignty due to the division of powers between the Union and the States in which both the Governments hav

SCIIOOL OF LAW & GOVERNANCE [CUSB] 21 !P a g e

Home
rn
Books
("'\
0 0
Aud iobooks Documents
5:1 1111 4G ·
0
scribd.com

S S C R IB Sea rch

STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA: A CASE REVIEW

The judgement in State of West Bengal v. Union of India (UOJ) had attached the highest
importance to an agreement or compact between states which constitutes an essential
characteristic of federalism. Subsequently, this ruling was overruled in the Kesavnanda
Bharti case ( 1973) and reiterated in the SR.Bommaijudgment (1994).

The case of Kesavantmt/{l Blwrttli v. State {If Kera/a is perhaps the most well-known
constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court). While ruling that
there is no implied limitation on the powers of Parliament to amend the Constitution, it held
that no amendment can do violence to its basic structure (the "Basic Structure Doctrine").
Further, it established the Supreme Court's right of review and, therefore, established its
supremacy on constitutional matters.
This decision may be said to have played a major role in preserving India's parliamen tary
democracy. The genesis of the dispute leading to Keshvananda Bharati lies in the
interpretation of Article 368 of the Indian Constitution, which allows Parliament to amend
the Constitution. While the Arlicle itself is unambiguous, the scope and extent of
Parliamentary power to modify the Constitution was a high ly contested issue, resulting in
the Golak N{lf/t j11tlgme11t" wherein the Supreme Court held that Parliament, in
exercising its power to amend the Constin1tion, did not have the power to amend the
fundamenta l rights under Part III of the Indian Constitution.
Similarly in S.R.Bommai v U11io11 of /11tlia , "pragmatic federalism" was used .
Quoting Justice Altmatli opined that "in order to understand the tnie nature of the
Indian Constitution, it is essential to comprehend the concept of federalism. The
essence of the federation is the existence of the Union and the States and the
29
distribution of powers between them. The significant absence of expressions like
'federal' or 'federation' in the Constitution, the powers of the Parliament under Articles 2
and 3, the extraordinary powers conferred to meet emergency situations, residuary
powers, powers to issue directions to the States,0 concept of single citizenship and the
system of integrated judiciary create doubts about the federal nature of the Indian
Constitution . Thus, it would be more appropriate to describe the Constitution of India
as quasi- federal or unitary rather than a federal Constitution in the true nature of the
term."

"Golaknath and Ors.v. State of Punjab; 1967 AIR1643

29
Amaresh Bagchi"Fifty Years of Fiscal Federal sm in India - An Appraisal'1
"Siale of Haryana v. Statcof Punjab; (1975) 3 SCR 355

SCIIOOL OF LAW & GOVERNANCE [CUSB] 17! P a g e

Home
rn
Books
("'\
0 0
Aud iobooks Documents
5:1 1111 4G ·
0
scribd.com

S SS CC RRIIBB D Search
Sea rch

STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA: A CASE REVIEW

and the States. The majority judgement of this case concluded that the structure of the
Indian Union as provided by the Constitution is centralized, with the States occupying a
secondary position. Hence the Centre possessed the requisite powers to acquire properties
belonging to States.

As the legislative field of the union is much wider than that of the State legislative
assemblies, the laws passed by the Parliament prevail over the State laws in case of any
conflict. In a few cases oflegislation where inter-State disputes are involved, sanction of the
President is made mandatory for the validity of those laws. Further, every State has its
j udiciary with the State High Court at the apex. This, in the opi11ion of the learned judge
does not affect the federal principle. He gives the parallel of Australia, where appeals against
certain decisions of the High Courts of the Commonwea lth of Australia lie with the Privy
Council. Thus the Indian federation cannot be negated on this account. In financial matters
the Union has more resources at its disposal as compared to the states.Thus, the Union
being in charge of the purse strings, can always, persuade the States to abide by its advice.
The powers vested in the union in case of nationa l emergencies, internal disturbance or
external aggression, financial crisis, and failure of the Constitutional machinery of the State
are all extraordinary powers in the nature of safety valves to protect the country's future.
The power granted to the Union to alter the boundaries of the States is also an extraordinary
power to meet future contingencies. ln their respective spheres, both executive and
legislative, the States are supreme.

His opinion thus meant that the Indian Constitution accepts the federal concept and
distributes the sovereign powers between the coordinate Constitutional entities, namely, the
Union and the States.

This j udgement was very importan t since i t discussed a question of utmost importance
regarding the federal features of the Indian Constitution. Although India governance is
perceived to be a combination of Unitary and Federal features, in ordinary applications of
its provisions, it is clear that the federal system is used. The federal system of governance
calls for and requires the allocation of power between the Centre and the different states.
There is a two- fold auqlv s jr o/ the relevauce and relatj an shjo a/ this ca m wjt h the fed eral
Ctwtrtre'i a,ftbe brt/jqrr Cqn£(jtutfqn 33

n https://www .indianfolk.com/west-bengal-v-union-india-legal-analysis/

SCIIOOL OF LAW & GOVERNANCE [CUSB] 20 IP a g e

Home
rn
Books
("'\
0 0
Aud iobooks Documents
5:1 1111 ·
5:10
0
scribd.com
4G
1111 r-= 1•
scribd.co

fi S CR I B D Searc h

STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. UNION OF INOIA: A CASE REVIEW

powers between the Union and States is tl1at only those powers which are concerned with
the regulation of local problems are vested in the States and the residue" specially those
which tend to maintain the economic industrial and commercial unity of the country are left
to the Union. It is not correct to say that all sovereignty is vested in the States. Parliament
which is competent to destroy a State cannot be held, on the theory of absolute sovereignty
of the States. to be incompetent to acquire by legislation the property owned by the States.

From the fact that Art.294 vests the property in the States and that An.298 empowers the
States to transfer the property it does not follow that the property of the States cannot be
acquired without a constitutional amendment. Article294 does not contain any prohibition
against the transfer of property of the States and if the propert y is capable of being
transferred by the State it is capable of being acquired.

FROM TH E AN GLE OF LEGA L SCR !JT ! NY· SCOPE OF TH E .!!JOGEMENT

The case of West Bengal v Union of India was landmark in this discussion since it brought
to light the usage of sovereign power by the states of India.The legislative competence of
the Parliament to enact a law for compulsory acquisition of land and other properties vested
in or owned by the state and the sovereign authority of states as dist inct entities had been
brought into question and was examined. This case was essential since the court outlined
the characteristics, which highlight the fact that the Indian Const itution is not a
"traditional federal Constin1tion", and held that the Indian Constitution did not propound a
principle of absolute federalism."Though the autbority was decentralized, th is was

I
mainly due to the arduous task of governing the large territory. It is clear that the
distribut ion of powers as provided to be a feature of any federal constitution is to
facilitate local governance by the states and national policies to be decided by the
Centre. But. this case recognized that, as against a federal Constitution. which contains
internal checks and balances, the Indian Constitution renders supreme power upon the
courts to invalidate any action violative of the Constitution.

This meant that the power had to be vested in the Courts and the Supreme Court further held
that both the legislative and executive power of the States are subject to the respective
supreme powers of the Union, which implied that the legal sovereignty of the Indian nation
is vested in the people of India and thepolitical sovereignty is distributed between the
Union

nSurendra Singh and Satish Misra •Federalism in India:Time for a Relook?"

" http://www.halfmantr.com/display-polity/161-indian·federalism

SCllOOL OF LAW & GOVL'RNANCE [CUSB] 19! P a g e

Home
rn
Books
("'\
0 0
Aud iobooks Documents
 OJ r'\
0 0
Home Books Audioboo ks Documents
5:1 1111 4G ·
0
scribd.com

S SCRIB Sea rch

D
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA: A CASE REVIEW

Though under ordinary circumstances the Central Government does not possess power to legislate on subjects enumerated in the State List, but under c
1. In the Natjqna l Interest CArt249l

If the Rajya Sabha declares by a resolution supported by not less than 2/3 of its members present and voting, that it is necessary or expedient in the nati
2. I oder Proclamation of National E mergen cy (Art 250)

Parliament can legislate on the subjects mentioned in the State List when the Proclama tion of National Emergency is in operation. How
3. By Ag reement hetwgep States (Art 252)

The Parliament can also legislate on a State subject if the legislatures of two or more states resolve that it is lawful of Parliament to make laws with respec
4. To Implem ent Treaties (Art 253)

The Parliament can make law for the whole or any part of the territory of India for implementing any treaty, international agreement or convention w
5. I Juder Proclamatjon of Presjdeot's Rule CArt 356)

SCIIOOL OF LAW & GOVERNANCE [CUSB] 24 1 P a g e

Home
rn
Books
("'\
0 0
Aud iobooks Documents
 5:10
1111 r-= 1•
scribd.co

fi S CR I B D Searc h

STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. UN ION OF INOIA: A CASE REVIEW

The Parliament can make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of lndia. Territory of India includes the states, UTs and any other area for the t ime being inclu
The Parliament can alone make'extra territorial legislation· thus the laws of the Parliament arc applicable to the Indian citizens and their property in any pan of the w
Sub J ect-matter a.f laws made by Padiamellt a11d b11 the L eg,islatiq11 a,fStater

The Constitution divides legislative authority between the Union and the States in three lists­ the Union List, the State List and the Concurrent List. The Union list co
The State list consists of 61 subjects on which ordinarily the States alone can make laws. These include public order, police, administration of ju stice, prison , local g
The Concurrent list comprises of 52 items including crim inal and civ il procedure, marriage and divorce, economic and special plann ing trade un ions. electricity,
Residuary power s oCJegislation

The constitution also veststhe residuary powers (subjects not enumerated in any of the three Lists) with the Union Parliament. The residuary powers have been gran
Parliamen t 's Power to J egj. s! ate on State jst.!

"ogspot.in/2011/08/cooperative·federal sm.html

23 ! P a ge

SCIIOOL OF LAW & GOVERNANCE [CUSB]

OJ r'\
0 0
Home Books Audioboo ks Documents
 5:10 1111 r-= 1•
scribd.co

fi S CR I B D Searc h

STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. UNION OF INOIA: A CASE REVIEW

ey are of a di ITerent importance than the Union subjects and matters.

e to redraw the boundaries of the state, and a prudent example is the States R c-orgapjsat jo p i\cl or 2014 . between Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. The emergency provisions in Article 356," is considered to be a d

CHAPTER V: MODERN IMPLICATION

I
Articles 245 to 255 in Part XI of the Constitution deal with the legislative relatio11s betwee11 the Ce11tre a11d the State.

Exte11t oflqws m gde bv Pqr!iq111e11t wr<I b11 dte Leg j slllt11res ofState s

14 P(Ovisions incase of failure of constitutional machinery in States

SCIIOOL OF LAW & GOVERNANCE [CUSB] 22 ! P a ge

0 0
Home Books Audioboo ks Documents
 OJ r'\

OJ r'\
0 0
Home Books Audioboo ks Documents