Source: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/co-operative-federalism-and-mutual-delegation-constitutional-law-essay.php
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 16:16:35+00:00

Document:
This project aims at understanding the theory of co-operative federalism and how it exists in the Indian federal system. It will then analyse mutual delegation of administrative powers between the Centre and the states and aim to understand whether these provisions fall within the ambit of a co-operative federal structure or are inimical to India’s claim of being a federal state.
A prominent example of Centre-state co-operation is the case of Jaora Sugar Mills v Madhya Pradesh.  In this case, the respondents enacted the Madhya Pradesh Sugarcane Act, 1958 which made a sugarcane cess payable as prescribed under it. The act was later found to be invalid as the legislative competence for the same rests with the Centre under the Union list. The Parliament, however, realized that this along with several other state acts suffered from the same Constitutional inconsistency following which they were passed and received Presidential consent. The appellants challenged the constitutional validity of such an act arguing that it was a piece of ‘colourable legislation’. The Supreme Court, though, held that though the intention behind the act may be questioned, yet, it was a constitutionally valid measure.
In view of the analysis so far, it can be safely concluded that the Indian federal structure is not based on rigid division of powers but also internalises a need for co-operation between the various units of governance. This co-operative federalist structure can be seen to exist in Constitutional as well as non-Constitutional spheres of administration, governance, distribution of powers, planning etc.
The Indian Constitution distributes between the Union and the states not only legislative power but also the executive power, more or less n the same lines. The result is that it is not competent for the state to exercise administrative power with respect to Union or for the Union to take up administration of any state function, unless the same has been authorised by the Constitution.  In administrative matters, a rigid division like this might lead to occasional deadlocks. Keeping this in mind, the framers of the Constitution took a position which was leaning towards co-operative federalism and enabled the Union as well as the state to make a mutual delegation of their respective administrative functions. The Constitution makers did not envision that there should be separate institutions enforcing legislations of the Centre and the states. Especially in matters under the concurrent list, the enforcement of laws enacted by the centre would be extremely problematic in the absence of co-ordination with the state administration.  So what would happen if the laws of the Centre and state were to conflict? In the case of Subramanyan Chettiar v Muthuswami Goundan  , Gwyer C.J. commented that “an absurd situation would result, if two inconsistent laws, each of equal validity, could exist side by side”. If the only safe-guard in place, in a situation where the law of the state and Centre conflicted, were that the Union would stand supreme then in effect it would be detrimental to federalism and the legislative powers conferred upon the states would be unduly restricted. Hence, the Constitution creates provisions such as those obviating execution of Central laws through state machinery which are not only consistent with the position of ‘co-operative federalism’ but are also economical and forward national integration.  Inter-governmental delegation may happen either under an agreement between the governments or by legislation. While the Union can use either of the powers, the state can only use the former to delegate administrative powers to the centre.
One may, in this connection turn to Art258 of the Indian Constitution. It provides that, “notwithstanding anything in the Constitution”, the President may, with the consent of the state government, entrust either conditionally or unconditionally, to the state government, or its officers, any function in relation to matters to which the Centre’s powers extend.
The extent of this provision can be understood in the case of Jayantlal Amratlal v F. N. Rana.  The Supreme Court highlighted the distinction between the functions vested in the President in his capacity as President on behalf of the Union and the functions vested in President in his capacity as President by the express provisions of the Constitution. The Presidents power of delegation is restricted to the first category of powers alone. Additionally, Art.258(2) also covers those situations where under a law made by Parliament, powers can be conferred and duties imposed on a state government, or its officers even though the state legislature has no power to make a law with respect to the subject-matter of the Union law.
In the case of D. K. Trivedi v State of Bihar  the Union had taken control of regulation of mines and development of all minerals. The state was delegated with rule-making powers for the task of regulating minor minerals. The Supreme Court held that as jurisdiction of mines and minerals is under the jurisdiction of the Union and the states under List I and II respectively, the Union legislation would stand. Also, they upheld the delegation of said power to the state as being constitutionally consistent with Art.154(2)(b).
The states can delegate administrative powers to the Centre under Art.258A of the Indian Constitution. This article was inserted by the Seventh Amendment Act, 1956 because of the absence of any provision enabling the states to entrust its functions to the Centre.  According to the provisions of the article, a state government may with the consent of the Government of India, entrust either conditionally or unconditionally to the Central Government or to its officers, functions in relation to any matter to which the executive power of the state extends.
In the case of N. B. Singh v Duryodhan  the appellant entered into a contract with the Union (President of India) in an independent contract for the construction of the Hirakud Dam where the Centre was entering into the contract on behalf of the State of Orissa as per the powers under Art.258A. The High Court of Orissa observed that the relationship arising by virtue of Art.258A between the centre and the state cannot be said to pertain to the law of agency but is only a constitutional statutory entrustment in relation to the exercise of the executive power which is a sovereign power. And by virtue of this executive power of the Union, the President through an authorised officer entered into a contract with the appellant with regard to the digging of the canal. As such even if the Hirakud Dam Project was held to be undertaken by the Government of Orissa, yet the work regarding which the contract was entered into was one of the works of the construction project undertaken by the Union Government by virtue of the entrustment of the function in relation to the Hirakud Dam Project to the Government of the Union.
In this project, firstly, an attempt was made to understand ‘competitive federalism’ and its difference from ‘co-operative federalism’ whilst evaluating the benefits accrued through the latter. Next, an analysis was made to understand to what extent the Indian Constitution and other non-constitutional structures are based on such co-operative structure. Subsequently, a detailed understanding of mutual delegation of administrative powers between the Centre and the states, which is considered to be a pillar in the Indian co-operative federalist structure, was put forward.
Lastly, an attempt will be made to view co-operative federalism in India through the lens of mutual delegation of administrative powers between the Centre and the state.
At the starting of this project an academic question was raised regarding whether the Indian Constitution can be characterised as being “federal”. Constitutional provisions such as limited taxation rights of the state or pre-eminence of the Union law in case of conflict between the Union and state law suggest that in fact India is not a federal state in the strict meaning of the word. A similar question may also now be raised regarding the “co-operative federal” structure. If one were to evaluate this keeping in view only the Constitutional provisions for mutual delegation of administrative powers, we would get evidence for the existence of ‘co-operative federalism’ in Art.248(1) and 248A. But there also exist clear features of a unitary, hierarchical system in the limited powers of the states and the potentially coercive powers of the Centre.
"Co Operative Federalism And Mutual Delegation." LawTeacher.net. 11 2013. All Answers Ltd. 04 2019 <https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/co-operative-federalism-and-mutual-delegation-constitutional-law-essay.php?vref=1>.
"Co Operative Federalism And Mutual Delegation." LawTeacher. LawTeacher.net, November 2013. Web. 22 April 2019. <https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/co-operative-federalism-and-mutual-delegation-constitutional-law-essay.php?vref=1>.
LawTeacher. November 2013. Co Operative Federalism And Mutual Delegation. [online]. Available from: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/co-operative-federalism-and-mutual-delegation-constitutional-law-essay.php?vref=1 [Accessed 22 April 2019].
LawTeacher. Co Operative Federalism And Mutual Delegation [Internet]. November 2013. [Accessed 22 April 2019]; Available from: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/co-operative-federalism-and-mutual-delegation-constitutional-law-essay.php?vref=1.

References: Art258
 Art.258
 Art.154
 Art.258
 Art.258
 Art.258
 Art.248