Article 258- Power of the Union to confer powers etc.

on the states in certain cases

1. Anwar vs. the State of Jammu and Kashmir

In this case the Foreigner have challenged the order of the deportation passed by the state
Government of Jammu and Kashmir on the Ground of the Foreigner’s act 1946 that the
Central Government could alone pass such order of the Deportation.
In this case the Supreme Court held that the Central Government has validly delegated its
Administrative Functions to the State of Jammu and Kashmir under the Foreigner’s act 1946
under Article 258[1] and it was held that the order of Deportation which was passed by the
state of Jammu and Kashmir is valid in this case.

Now according to the Article 258 it states that the President with the consent of the
Government of the state can entrust conditionally and unconditionally to that Government or
to the officers Functions in the relation to any of the matter to which the executive power of
the Union extends.
The Article states that the President can entrust some of the Functions the government of the
state or to its officers in relation to any of the matter to which the executive power of the
Union shall apply.
Now there is a limitation on this power being exercised by the President, which is stated in
the case of the Jayantilal Amartlal Shodhan vs. F.N. Rana.

2. Limitation to Article 258- Jayantilal Amritlal Shodhan vs. F.N Rana

In this case it was held that in Article 258 enables the president to entrust the state the certain
functions which are vested with the union and are exercisable by the President on behalf of
the Union. But it does not authorize the President to entrust any of the Person or the body the
powers and the Functions with which he is express provisions of the constitution, which
means that he cannot entrust those functions which are vested in him in accordance with the
Provisions of the Constitution.
There are certain powers which are vested with the President where he cannot entrust those
Functions like-
o Under Article 123- Promulgation of the Ordinances
o To Suspend the Provisions of Article 268-279
o To Declare an emergency under Article 352
o To make the rules of the Recruitment

3. Samsher Singh vs. the State of Punjab

In this case it was it was clarified that the Distinction made by the Supreme Court in the case
of Jayantilal Amritlal Shodhan vs. Union of India between the executive functions of the
Union and the executive functions of the President does not lead to the conclusion that the
President is not the Constitutional Head of the Government.

4. State of Andhra Pradesh vs. State of Karnataka

The Inter- State Water Disputes act, 1956 excludes the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
and the other courts over the Tribunals over the Inter-state water Disputes.
5. State of Tamil Nadu vs. the State of Karnataka 1991

In the case of the State of Karnataka the Supreme Court was barred from the Jurisdiction of
the Inter-state water Dispute tribunals if any of the party appeared before the court. Now
what was barred was the question in this case.
In this case it was stated that whether any of the party before the tribunal was entitled to any
relief in merits, but the Supreme Court could determine the Jurisdiction of the Tribunal and
can direct the tribunal on decide on the merits whether any of the Party was entitled to any
Interim-relief on the Facts of the case.

6. Tamil Nadu Kaveri Sajam vs. the Union of India 1991

It was held by the Supreme Court in this case that if the Central Government has failed to
make a reference of the dispute related to the Inter- State water dispute. The Supreme Court
could on an application under the Article 32 by the aggrieved party can issue the Writ
Mandamus to the Central Government to carry out its Statutory obligations.