Source: https://freebooksummary.com/residuary-power-art-248
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 04:56:15+00:00

Document:
TITLE “A shift from traditional parliamentary legislation to judicial legislation with reference to Residuary Power” INTRODUCTION The topic for research is, “A shift from traditional parliamentary legislation to judicial legislation with reference to Residuary Power” To which the statement of object and reasons are as follows: U. S. A is regarded as the example of true federation, whereas India has followed the Canadian model of federation and is regarded as the example of loose federation. In the words of D. D. Basu, the Constitution of India is neither purely federal nor unitary, but is a combination of both.
It is a union or a composite of a novel type. It is often defined to be quasi-federal in nature. Under Indian Constitution seventh schedule has important place in regards with the distribution of power. Distribution of power is one of the important features of Federalism. The legislative power under Indian Constitution has been distributed amongst the union and the states in three different lists. As law has to adapt according to changing nature of society therefore Indian Constitution has envisaged the provision of the residuary power under Art. 48. The scope of residuary power is very wide and differs in various federations. Constitution vested the power to legislate on residuary matters with the parliament. Even the judiciary has also played vital role in interpreting the provision of Constitution as to residuary power. Judiciary has given wide meaning to Art. 248 in various cases. Judiciary with changing needs of the society has laid down guidelines on subjects not enumerated in any lists of seventh schedule as well as on those subjects where parliament has never touched.
Same has been done by judiciary in the light of judicial activism for bringing “complete justice”. This indicates that there has been judicial legislation as residuary matters, which has become one of the challenges with respect to the Constitution. JUSTIFICATION Article 248 deals with the concept of residuary power. According to which, Parliament can legislate laws as to residue, which indicates the strong centre with federal feature. The concept of residuary power differs from country to country, it means differently in India and U. S.
A respectively. The residuary power as laid down under Article. 248 of Indian Constitution has been widely interpreted by the Indian judiciary. In order to bring “complete justice” honorable Supreme Court, through various judgments laid down the laws on subject being the residue. Judiciary with changing needs of the society has laid down guidelines on subjects not enumerated in any lists of seventh schedule as well as on those subjects where parliament has never touched. This indicates that there has been judicial legislation as residuary matters.
The above three lists are exhaustive, as it covers all possible items. Union List consists of 97 items, State List consists of 66 items and Concurrent List consists of 47 items. Item 97 of Union List deals with residuary power. Article. 248 along with item 97 vests the exclusive power to make laws on residuary matter with Parliament. As law has to adapt according to changing nature of society therefore Indian Constitution has vested the power to the same with parliament. The judiciary has also played vital role in interpreting the provision of Constitution as to residuary power.
Judiciary has given wide meaning to Art. 248 in various cases. Along with Art. 248, Art. 32 and 142 plays significant role in bringing “complete justice” through laying down the guidelines in various judgments by honorable Supreme Court on those subject on which parliament has not yet legislated any kind of law or the on those subject is not enumerated in any kind of the lists in seventh schedule. Indian Constitution only lay down the provision as to residuary power of the parliament and not of the judiciary.
Distribution of power is one of the important features of Federalism. Under Indian Constitution powers are distributed amongst the union and the state as per the seventh schedule as in: * Union List * State List * Concurrent List The three different lists in seventh schedule are exhaustive in nature. Entry 97 of list I along with Article 248 deals with the concept of residuary power. According to which power to makes laws on the subjects not enumerated in any of the three lists mentioned in seventh schedule vest with the parliament.
Doctrinal method deals with research based on books, judgment, internet etc. It is also called as Arm chaired research. Empirical method deals with research based on survey, interviews etc. It is expensive time consuming method. In this research, researcher uses Doctrinal Research Method to analyze the data. Doctrinal research helps to understand what the law is on a particular issue. It is concerned with analysis of the legal doctrine and how it has been developed and applied. This type of research is also known as pure theoretical research.
It consists of either a simple research directed at finding a specific statement of the law or a more complex and in depth analysis of legal reasoning. The sources of data collection may be categorized into primary source and secondary source of data collection for the purpose of Doctrinal Research. Primary sources in legal research includes, original data like Constitution, National Gazette which passed by Legislature, Rules, Regulations, Statutory Orders, Case Reports that publish in Judicial Pronouncements. Secondary sources of data collection furnish the information derived from primary sources.
These sources organize the information in a systematic manner. These secondary sources include textbooks, treatises, commentaries on statutes, abstracts, dictionaries, encyclopedias, indexes, journals, reviews. Textbooks and legal treatises offer a researcher proper idea of the subject and enable him to find several other useful sources of information on the topic of his research. CHAPTER 1 CONCEPT OF FEDERALISM CHAPTER 1: A. WHETHER THE CONSTITUTION IS FEDERAL? There is no universally agreed definition of federation. Scholars tended to regard the oldest federal constitution, the constitution of the U.
S. , as the paradigm example or model. But now there is rethinking. The scholars are adopting the view that question whether a state is federal or unitary is one of degrees and the answer will depend upon the number of federal features possessed by it. It has also stated that federation is more functional than institutional concept. Any theory that asserts that there are certain inflexible features without which a political system cannot be federal ignores the fact that institutions are not the same in different social and cultural environments. Dr. D. D.
Basu took a very pragmatic yet forward looking view when he remarked that the constitution is neither purely federal not purely unitary but is a combination of both. It is a union or composite state of noval type. B. TEST OF FEDERATION: Prof. K. C. Wheare called the constitution as having created a unitary state with subsidiary federal features rather than a federal state with subsidiary unitary features. But subsequently he revised his opinion and though it proper to label our constitution as quasi-federal. It seems that Indians have taken a practical non-dogmatic view.
Dr. Ambedkar in his speech in the constituent Assembly had stated that the constitution is both unitary as well as federal according to the requirements of time and circumstances. The Supreme Court has in Automobile Transport‘s Case characterized our polity as federal. In Kesavanand Bharati’s Case some of the judges considered federation is a basic feature of our constitution. A larger nine judge’s bench in Bommai’s Case has clearly enunciated that our constitution is federal though only some of the judges considered federalism as a basic feature. C.
CHARACTERISTICS OF A FEDERATION: A federal constitution generally possesses the following 5 characteristics- i. Dual government and distribution of powers: dual or two sets of governments. In a unitary state as the name indicates there is only one government. That national government. In a federation two sets of governments co-exist. The national also called central or federal government and government of each constituent state. These two governments derives there power from the same source the constitution and not controlled by the other but by the constitution.
But it would be erroneous to assume that they work in watertight compartment. They govern the same people and their object is to serve the same populace so naturally their functions many at times touch and affect each other. They must necessarily work not in isolation but in active co operation with the other. Importance of the word union: a) the constitution in Art. 1(1) states India, that is Bharat, shall be union of states. Dr. Ambedkar had stated in the constituent assembly that the word union has been used advisedly because it has certain advantages.
It indicates that (i) the Indian federation is not the result of an agreement among the states and (ii) the state has no right to secede. It may be noted that the word union was employed by Stafford Cripps in his proposals and was also used in the cabinet mission plan. The word union is not decisive of any characteristics. The U. S. Constitution which is a model of federation uses the word. The Union of South Africa Act, 1909 which created a unitary constitution employed the same word. Even the earlier constitution of Soviet Russia called it Union of Soviet socialist Republic.
So labels given by the draftsman are not conclusive evidence. ii. Written Constitution: in order to make the distribution clear and permanent it must be reduced to writing and must be made amenable to amendments and changes by observing the procedure laid down in the constitution itself. Left to unwritten conventions or understanding it would create fluidity which in turn would generates uncertainty leading to dissatisfaction among the constituent units. iii. Supremacy of the Constitution: constitution as regarded as a higher law which is there for the union and states to obey and honour.
None of the units has the authority to override or disregard the constitution. In some cases the union may have overriding powers but not in relation to the divisions of power. Federal constitutions guard attentively the distribution of powers and do not tolerate encroachments. Just as public corporations derive their powers from the act creating them the two sets of government owe their power to the constitution and are in a way controlled by it and function within the limits marked by it. iv. Rigidity: rigidity does not mean that the constitution is not subject to any change and must remain in the same static condition.
But as a corollary of the necessity of having a written constitution it is required that the provisions containing and regulating the distribution of powers must not be left to the discretion of the centre or states. The amending process should lay down as a precondition the concurrence of both. Our constitution provides amendment by special majority at the centre followed by ratification by at least half of the states. In the U. S. A. it is ? of the states. v. Authority of courts: in a federation there is possibility of a state encroaching upon the field of another state.
There is also the possibility of the union trespassing on the rights of one or more state as also the state purporting to exercise the functions of the union. To take care of such contingencies a federation contemplates an independent judicial body which will decide the rights of the units and keep them confined within their limits. The courts have the last word in regard to questions involving interpretation of the constitution. Our constitution confer original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in regard to federal matters Art. 131.
Thus the Supreme Court has been constituted arbiter in all disputes involving the units. D. CONSTITUTION HAS ALL THE FIVE CHARACTERISTICS: The five characteristic features recounted above are found in our constitution. Our constitution is written documents which establish a dual polity with, One Central and 28 State Governments respectively, each deriving its powers from the supreme law of our land, the Constitution. The powers of the union and the states are plenary within the boundaries defined by the constitution. The constitution is endowed with supremacy.
The centre alone cannot mould or change it. Federal features may be amended with the concurrence of both sets of government as required by Art. 368 of the constitution. To guard the division of legislative and administrative powers between the two sets of government the constitution has set up the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court may invalidate and stop any act which transgresses the division. It may be an administrative act or a legislative measure. The Supreme Court may be moved by any person aggrieved by violation of the distribution of powers or by any state or the union.
It is the existence above features in our constitution that led the Supreme Court to describe our constitution as federal. E. FEATURES OF CONSTITUTION INCONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL PRINCIPLE: There are certain provisions contained in the constitution which are departure from the federal principle or to put it in another way it may be called Indian modification of the federal principle. a) One constitution for the states. b) Single citizenship. c) States not indestructible. d) More legislative powers conferred on the union. e) State’s field of legislation can be invaded by the centre. ) Union’s power to give directions to the states. g) Appointment of Governor. h) During financial emergency. i) Control by bureaucracy. j) Appointment of High Court judges. k) No equality of state representation. F. EVIDANCE OF FERERAL SPIRIT: Any perusal of the political events would reveal that the states are not the agent or instrumentalities of the centre. In the spite of the strong centre tendency the states have been able to assert their rights. There have been territorial disputes between Karnataka and Maharashtra; and Punjab and Haryana. Disputes over sharing of the water took place between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.
Nagaland, Tripura and Manipur have laid claims to each other’s territory. A more stark fact supporting the existence of federalism is the spectacles of different parties in power in different states. In which Bengal and Kerala the left front has formed the government a number of times. It is the success of federalism in giving effect to the aspiration of the people that there is a never ending demand for creation of new states. In the constitution of 1950 there were 9 part A and 5 Part B states. As of today after abolition of Part B states the total number of states is 28.
Another piece of evidence is the loud clamour for obtaining more grants from the centre and assertion of autonomy in matters pertaining to law and order especially in West Bengal and Bihar. The central government has been paying more to the state government then recommended by the Finance Commissions appointed under Art. 280. Whatever have been the doubts of some foreign writers, our own scholars have proved right and the federal principle can be felt and seen in India in vigorous operation in the polity. From the above discussion it is seen that the constitution of India neither is the complete federation nor it is completely unitary.
It has the features of both. Sir Ivor Jennings was of the view that India has a federation with a strong centralizing policy. In the words of D. D. Basu, the Constitution of India is neither purely federal nor unitary, but is a combination of both. It is a union or a composite of a novel type. It is often defined to be quasi-federal in nature. Thus we can safely say that, it is primarily Federal having some unitary features. Distribution of power plays vital role in federal polity. Therefore, Researcher herein has elaborated the distribution of power, which is one of the important features of federal constitution, in following chapter.
CHAPTER 2 DISTRIBUTION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER IN FEDERAL POLITY CHAPTER 2: A. NATURE OF THE UNION: Though there is a strong admixture of unitary bias and the exceptions from the traditional federal scheme are many, the constitution introduces a federal system as the basic structure of government of the country. The union is composed of 28 states and both the union and the states derived their authority from the constitution which divides all powers, – legislative, executive and financial, as between them.
The judicial powers are not divided and there is a common judiciary for the union and the states. The result is that the states are not delegates of the union and that, through there are agencies and devices for Union control over the states in many matters,- subject to such exceptions, the states are autonomous within their own spheres as allotted by the constitution, and both the union and the states are equally subject to the limitations imposed by the constitution, say, for instance, the exercise of legislative powers being limited by Fundamental Rights.
As has been pointed out at the outset, a federal system postulates a distribution of powers between the federation and the units. Though the nature of distribution varies according to the local and political background in each country, the division, obviously, proceeds on two lines- i. The territory over which the Federation and Units shall, respectively, have their jurisdiction. ii. The subject to which their respective jurisdiction shall extended.
The distribution of legislative powers in our constitution under both heads is as follows: I) Territorial Extent of union and state Legislation:- as regards the territory with respect to which the legislature may legislate, the state Legislature naturally suffers from a limitation to which Parliament is not subject, namely, that the territory of the union being divided amongst the states, the jurisdiction of each state must be confined to its own territory.
When, therefore, a state legislature makes a law relating to a subject within its competence, it must be read as referring to persons or objects situated within the territory of the state concerned. A State Legislature can make laws for the whole or any part of the State Legislature to enlarge its territorial jurisdiction under any circumstances except when the boundaries of the state itself are widened by an Act of Parliament.
Parliament has, on the other hand, the power to legislate for ‘the whole or any part of the territory of India’, which includes not only the states but also the Union Territories or any other area, for the time being, included in the territory of India Art. 246(4). It also possesses the power of ‘extra territorial legislation’ Art. 245 (2), which no States Legislature possesses.
This means that laws made by Parliament will govern not only persons and property within the territory of India but also Indian subjects resident and their property situated anywhere in the world. No such a power to affect persons or property outside the borders of its own states can be claimed by a State Legislature in India. II) Distribution of Legislative Subjects: – as regards the subject of legislation, the constitution adopt from the Governments of India Act, 1935, a threefold distribution of legislative powers between the union and the states Art. 246.
While in the United States and Australia, there is only a single enumeration of powers,- only the powers of the Federal Legislature being enumerated, – in Canada there is a double enumeration, and the government of India Act, 1935, introduced a scheme of threefold enumeration, namely, federal, provincial and Concurrent. The constitution adopts this scheme from the Act of 1935 by enumerating possible subjects of legislation under three Legislative Lists in Schedule VII of the constitution. List I or the Union List includes 97 subjects over which the union shall have exclusive power of legislation.
These include defense, foreign affairs, banking, insurance, currency and coinage, Union duties and taxes. List II or the State List comprises 66 items or entries over which the State Legislature shall have exclusive power of legislation, such as public order and police, local government, public health and sanitation, agriculture, forests, fisheries, State taxes and duties. List III gives concurrent powers to the Union and the State Legislatures over 47 items, such as Criminal law and procedure, civil procedure, marriage, contract, torts, trust, welfare of labour, economic and social planning and education.
In case of overlapping of a matter as between the three Lists, predominance has been given to the Union Legislature, as under the Government of India Act, 1935. Thus, the power of the State Legislature to legislate with respect to matters enumerated in the State List has been made subject to the power of Parliament to legislate in respect of matters enumerated in the Union and Concurrent Lists, and the entries in the State List have to be interpreted accordingly. In the concurrent sphere, in case of repugnancy between a Union and a State law relating to the same subject, the former prevails.
If however, the State law was reserved for the assent of the President and has received such assent, the state law may prevail notwithstanding such repugnancy, but it would still be competent for Parliament to override such state law by subsequent legislation Art. 254(2). C. EXPANSION OF THE LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF THE UNION UNDER DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES: While the forgoing may be said to be an account of the normal distribution of the legislative powers, there are certain exceptional circumstances under which the above system of distribution is either suspended or the powers of the Union Parliament are extended over state subjects.
These exceptional or extraordinary circumstances are – a) In the National Interest. Parliament shall have the power to make laws with respect to any matter included in the State List, for a temporary period, if the council of States declares by a resolution of 2/3 of its members present and voting that it is necessary in the national interest that Parliament shall have power to legislate over such matters. Each such resolution will give a lease of one year to the law in question.
A law made by Parliament, which Parliament would not but for the passing of such resolution have been competent to make, shall, to the extent in the incompetency, cease to have effect on the expiration of a period of six months after the resolution has ceased to be in force, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before the expiration of the said period Art. 249. The resolution of the council of state may be renewed for a period of one year at a time. b) Under a Proclamation of Emergency.
While a Proclamation of ‘Emergency’ made by the President is in operation, Parliament shall have similar power to legislate with respect to State subjects. A law made by Parliament, which Parliament would not but for the issue of such proclamation have been competent to make, shall, to the extent of incompetency, cease to have effect on the expiration of a period 6 months after the proclamation has ceased to operate, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before the expiration of the said period (Art. 250). c) By agreement between states.
If the Legislatures of two or more States resolve that it shall be lawful for Parliament to make laws with respect to any matters included in the State List relating to those States, Parliament shall have such power as regards such states. It shall also be open to any other State to adopt such Union legislation in relation of itself by a resolution passed in that behalf in the Legislature of the State. In sort, this is an extension of the jurisdiction of Parliament by consent of the State Legislatures Art. 252. d) To implement treaties.
Parliament shall have the power to legislate with respect to any subject for the purpose of implementing treaties or international agreements and conventions. In other words, the normal distribution of powers will not stand in the way of Parliament to enact legislation for carrying out its international obligations, even though such legislation may be necessary in relation to a state subject Art. 253. Examples of such legislation are: Geneva Convention Act, 1960; Anti Hijacking Act, 1982; United Nations Privileges and Immunities Act, 1947. e) Under a proclamation of a failure of constitutional machinery in the states.
When such a Proclamation is made by the President, the President may declare that the powers of the Legislature of the state shall be exercisable by or under the authority of Parliament Art. 356 (1) (b. ) Thus, it can be said that union enjoys vast legislative power under Indian Constitution. Parliament is empowered to make laws on subjects enumerated in List I, List III of Seventh Schedule. According to Art. 248 Parliament is also empowered to make laws on residuary matters with the changing scenario in the society which has been examined by researcher herein in next chapter.
The next chapter deals with the detail analysis of residuary power as laid down under Indian Constitution and in Constitution of other countries. CHAPTER 3 CONCEPT OF RESIDUARY POWER CHAPTER 3: As discussed in earlier chapter, there has been distribution of power between the Union and the States. The three Lists enumerated in seventh schedule of Indian Constitution are drawn very elaborately and presumably all subject-matters -identifiable at the time of the constitution-making, and regarding which a government could conceivably be called upon to make laws in modern times, have been assigned to one of the Lists.
But it is humanly not possible to foresee every possible activity and assign it to one List or the other. Hence the necessity of residuary power is felt. The concept of residuary power differs from country to country. The concept of residuary power in India and of U. S. A differs to much extent. India has adopted the Canadian model for the concept of residuary power. The position of residuary power in various countries has been enumerated herein below: 1) U. S. A: The Federation under the American Constitution has got only enumerated powers, while the residue is vested in the States.
The framers of the Canadian Constitution supposed that the American system of vesting residuary powers in the State resulted in weakness of the Federal Government; so they reversed the process, by leaving the residue to the Dominion Parliament, conferring on the Provincial Legislature only such powers as might be required for local purposes 4) Government of India Act, 1935: The provision in this Act as regards the Vesting of the residual power was novel. That power was given neither to the Federation nor to the Provinces. It was vested in the Governor-General, acting in his discretion as laid down in s. 04 of act. 5) Indian Constitution, 1950: The framers of the Constitution were conscious of the fact that human knowledge is limited and human perception imperfect and no one could foresee what contingency may arise in future needing legislation. Therefore, the residuary power is intended to take care of such matters as could not be identified at the time of the constitution-making. Further, the framers of the Constitution were designedly devising for a strong Centre, Moreover, the present is an era of fast technological advancement, and no one can visualize future developments and exigencies of government.
Something unforeseen may happen and some new matter may arise calling for governmental action. A question may then arise as to which government, Central or State, is entitled to legislate with respect to that matter. To meet this difficulty, the Constitution provides that the residue will belong exclusively to the Centre. This is provided for in Art. 248 read with entry 97, List I. These provisions take care of any unforeseen eventuality. Art. 248 reads as- (1) Parliament has exclusive power to make law with respect to any matter not enumerated in Concurrent List or State List. 2) Such power shall include the power of making any law imposing a tax not mentioned in either of those Lists. Therefore, it can be summarized that, residuary power under U. S. Constitution vests with the states and not with the centre. In Canada, the residuary power vests with the centre and not with the states, the same model has been followed by the India as reflected in Art. 248 of Indian Constitution. Judiciary has given wide interpretation to the provisions of residuary power in India as well in U. S. A which has changed the scope of residuary power in respective countries.
The same has been emphasized by the researcher in the next chapter. CHAPTER 4 JUDICIAL PRONOUNCMENT ON RESIDUARY POWER: COMPARISON BETWEEN INDIA ; U. S. A. CHAPTER 4: Judiciary has played vital role in expanding the horizons as to provisions of residuary power. The concept of residuary power differs in India as well as U. S. A. This chapter deals with the landmark cases from both the countries as to residuary power and same has been analyzed by the researcher in this chapter. A) U. S. A: In, Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar The Court extended the application of S. E. Underwriters.
Assn. , case to Sherman Act to prohibit price setting by the State bars. The Court observed that bar enforcement of a schedule of minimum fees that lawyers could charge operated as a restraint of trade. At the same time, a more widespread similarity of local conditions cannot confer upon Congress a power which is reserved to the States by the Constitutions and the Court would not sustain a Federal law which plainly seeks to exercise a power which cannot be said to be included within any of the ‘enumerated powers’ of Congress as enlarged by the doctrine of implied Powers’.
The bar raised in the way of such expansion of Federal powers by the Tenth Amendment has been avoided, in many recent decisions, by holding that the Tenth Amendment does not constitute any limitation upon the otherwise legitimate powers of the Federal Legislature, but only expresses a “truism” that all that has not been surrendered to the former has been retained by the State. In, NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corpn. , The Court upheld the National Labour Relations Act against commerce clause Challenge and in the process, departed from the distinction between “direct and “indirect” effects on inter-State commerce.
It was held that the question of the scope of Congress’ power is necessarily one of degree. It was observed that infra-State activities that “have such a close and substantial relation to inter-State commerce that their control is essential or appropriate to protect that commerce from burdens and obstructions” are within Congress’ power to regulate it. In, Wickard v. Filburn, The Court upheld regulations controlling the production and consumption of home grown wheat. Even if the (farmer Filburn’s) activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on inter-State commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined or indirect. According to craig R. ducat, “the Court appears to have developed such disclaim for the dualist approach that it was no longer willing even to consider to direct indirect effect framework of previous cases.
It only mattered that the local activity could have a potential effect as inter-State commerce. The metamorphosis was now complete”. The vitality of State’s rights as an independent bar to the exercise of the Federal Governments’ enumerated powers vanished with a wave of the courts’ hand. The Tenth Amendment was reduced to stating a mere tautology. But in, United States v. Lopez, After taking into consideration the earlier decisions, held that the expansive interpretation is subject to outer limits. (1) The Congress may regulate the use of the channels of inter-State commerce. 2) Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of inter-State commerce or persons or things in infer-State commerce, even though, the threat may come only from intra-State activities. (3) Congress’ authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to inter-State commerce, i. e. , those activities that substantially affect inter-State commerce. It was observed that a determination whether infra-State activity is commercial or non-commercial may in some cases result in legal uncertainty.
But, so long as Congress’ authority is “limited” to those “enumerated” in the Constitution, and so long as those ‘enumerated powers’ are interpreted as having judicially enforceable outer limits, congressional legislation under the commerce clause always will engender “legal uncertainty”. The Constitution mandates this uncertainty by withholding from Congress a plenary police power that would authorize enactment of every type of legislation. Congress has operated within this framework of legal uncertainty ever since this Court determined that it was judiciary’s duty “to say what law is”.
Any possible benefit from eliminating this “legal uncertainty” would be at the expense of the Constitutional system of enumerated powers. The above decision was followed in, U. S. v. Morrisson, Wherein it was held that “Constitution requires a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local”. It was observed that Congress may not “use the Commerce clause to completely obliterate the distinction between national and local authority”. In, Garcia v. San Antonia Metropolitan Transit Authority, The Court overruled the decision in National League of Cities v.
Usery. It was held: “We doubt that courts ultimately can identify constitutional limitations on the scope of Congress’ Commerce clause powers over the States merely by relying on a. priori definition of ‘fundamental” elements of State’s sovereignty. Also, the sovereignty of States is limited by the Congress itself. But in, New York v. U. S. , The decision in Tuta v. Katt, was distinguished and it was held: “States are not mere political sub-divisions of United States; State Governments are neither regional offices nor administrative agencies of the Federal Government.
It was observed: “It is obvious that these Lists have been carefully prepared. They are by and large exhaustive. Entry 97 of List I was included to meet some unexpected and unforeseen contingencies. It is difficult to believe that our Constitution makers, who were keenly conscious of the importance of the provisions relating to the amendment of the Constitution and debated that question for several days, would have left the important power hidden in Entry 97 of List I leaving it to the off chance of the courts locating that power in that entry.
We are unable to agree with these learned Judges when they sought to rely on Arts. 245, 246 and 248 and Entry 97 List I for the purpose of locating the power of amendment in the residuary power conferred on the Union”. In that case, Court overruled the earlier decision in I. C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab, which held that Parliament can exercise the power of amendment of the Constitution under the residuary powers under Art. 248 read with Entry 97 of List. Taking clue from the above observation in Kesavananda Bharati’s case, learned author H.
In the majority judgment, it was held that in case the State lacks legislative competence, the Court must proceed on the basis that Parliament alone has me legislative competence and it would not be permissible to uphold the State Act by leaning in favour of the State or by giving a broader meaning to the entry in List II relating to the subject matter of legislation. It was further observed that recourse to residuary power must be taken as a last resort, i. e. , only when all the Entries in the three Lists are absolutely exhausted and when two interpretations are possible, resort to the residuary power may not be taken recourse to.
In Union of India v. H. S. Dhillon , Court held: “If a Central Act is challenged as being beyond the legislative competence of Parliament, it is enough to enquire if it is a law with respect to matters or taxes enumerated in List II. If it is not, no further question arises”. In that case, it was contended that the words “any other matter” in Entry 97 of List I means other than those specifically excluded in Entries 1 to 96 such as agricultural land I Entry 86. Rejecting the argument, the Court held: “It seems to us that the function of Art. 46(1) read with Entries 1 to 96 in List I is to give positive power to Parliament, to legislate in respect of these Entries. Object is not to debar Parliament from legislating on a matter, even if other provisions of the Constitution enable it to do so. Accordingly, we do not interpret the words “any other matter” occurring in Entry 97 of List I to mean a topic mentioned by way of exclusion. These words really refer to the matters contained in each of the Entries 1 to 96. The words “any other matter” have to be used because Entry 97 of List I follows Entries 1 to 96 of List I.
It is true that the field of legislation is demarcated by Entries 1 to 96 of List I, but demarcation does not mean that if Entry 97 of List I confers additional powers, we should refuse to give effect to it. At any rate, whatever doubt there may be on the interpretation of Entry 97 of List I is removed by the wide term of Art. 248. It is framed in the widest possible terms. On its terms, the only question to be asked is: “Is the matter sought to be legislated included in List II or List III or is the tax sought to be levied mentioned in List II or in List III?
No question has to be asked about List I. If the answer is in the negative, then it follows that Parliament has power to make laws in respect to that matter or tax’. In, State of Karnataka v. Union of India, Wherein the Court observed: “Item 97 of the Union List corresponds to the residuary legislative powers of Parliament under Art. 248 of the Constitution. It gives effect to Art. 248. The Constitution makers cannot always mention and exhaust every conceivable topic. It is in order to meet precisely such a situation that Art. 48 read with Entry 97 was inserted”. The power of making any law, imposing a tax, is not mentioned in List II or III and hence the said power vests in Parliament under its residuary power. If any power to tax is clearly mentioned in List II, the same would not be available to be exercised by the Parliament on the assumption of residuary power. It was held that under our Constitutional scheme, the power to legislate in respect of a matter does not carry with it the power to tax.
It was held therein that taxation is not intended to be comprised in the main subject in which it might on an extended construction be regarded as included, but is treated as a distinct matter for the purpose of legislative competence, which is evident from the language of Art. 248(1) and (2) and of Entry 97 of List I. In, Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India, The Supreme Court ruled That Parliament was competent to enact the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 in the exercise of the legislative power conferred on it under Entry 2 of List I and Article 248 read with Entry 97 of list I.
After the insertion of Entry 2A in List I by the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution, the legislative power of Parliament to enact the Central Act would flow from Entry 2A of List I. The Court further explained that a law providing for “deployment of the Armed Forces of Union in aid of the civil power of a State”, would not be a law in respect of maintenance of public order falling under Entry I of List II. But, such a Central Law would not enable the armed forces of the Union to supplant or act as a substitute for the civil power in the State.
The armed forces of the Union, the Court said, would operate in the State concerned, in co-operation with the civil administration. In, International Tourism Corporation v. State of Haryana, The Court held that residuary power could not be so expansively interpreted as to whittle down the power of the State Legislature. This might affect and jeopardize the federal principle. The resort to the residuary power should be the last refuge Therefore, it can be summarized that, judiciary has given wide interpretation to the provisions of residuary power in India and U. S. A respectively.
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA- NEW CHALLENGES IN THE FIELD OF RESIDUARY POWER VIS-A-VIS JUDICIAL RESPONSE CHAPTER 5 A. ROLE OF JUDICIARY IN INDIA: The Constitution of any Country is the Supreme Law of the land. By nature, the law relating to the Constitution is dynamic and it should be developed-in consonance with the changing times and needs, the Indian Constitution is not an exception to the above cardinal rule. After the Constitution has come into force on 26th January, 1950, there has been a phenomenal growth in the development of Constitutional concepts, principles, and dynamics.
The constitutional development results through a variety of processes. The most direct one is the constitutional amendment by the Parliament. The Judiciary has also contributed immensely to this constitutional development through judicial interpretation. In this process as Justice Black and Justice Frankfurter of the USA had rightly stated “while the language of the Constitution does not change, the changing circumstances of a progressive society for which it has designed yield new and fuller import of its meaning. ” The task of interpreting the Constitution is a highly creative judicial function.
A democratic society lives and swears by certain values like individual liberty, human dignity, rule of law, socio, economic justice and limited government. It is the task of judiciary to interpret the Constitution to constantly inculcate these values on which democracy sustains and develops. Since the commencement of the Constitution the Supreme Court has rendered many decisions giving creative, purposeful, liberal and dynamic interpretation expanding various provisions of the Constitution thus a distinct constitutional jurisprudence has emerged.
For example, new and expansive dimensions given to Arts. 12, 13, 15, 16, 21, 30, 124, 142, 246, 356 and 368. B. JUDICIAL ACTIVISM: What is meant by judicial activism? It is a philosophy of administering justice whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, ignoring precedents. It is innovative, dynamic and law making role of the court with a forward looking attitude discarding reliance on old cases and also mechanical, conservative and static view.
It is a progressive judicial thinking, developing the law for handling constructively the contemporary problems of society. It is creative thought process through which the court displays vigour, enterprise, initiative, pulsating with the urge of creating new and refined principles of law. It is a sort of judicial creativity. “Unusual fact situation poses issue for resolution is an opportunity for innovation. Law, as administered by courts, transforms into justice. ” The law does not remain static.
It does not operate in vaccum. As social norms and values changes, law too has to be interpreted and recast. Law is really dynamic instrument fashioned by society for the purpose of achieving harmonious adjustment, human relations by elimination of social tensions and conflicts. Lord Denning once said: “Law does not stand still; it moves continuously. Once this is recognized, then the task of the judge is to put on the higher plane. He must consciously seek to mould law so as to serve the need of the time. ” C.
ARTICLE 32 AND 142: Wide powers are given to the Supreme Court under Art. 32 which itself is a fundamental right imposes a constitutional obligation on the court to forge such new tools, which may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution. LORD DENNING, in his lecture under the title “FREEDOM UNDER THE LAW” in 1949 said: “No one can suppose that the executive will never be guilty of the sins that are common to all of us. You may be sure that they will ometime do things which they ought not to do: and will not do things that they ought to do. But if and when wrongs are thereby suffered by any of us, what is the remedy? Our procedure for securing our personal freedom is efficient, our procedure for preventing the abuse of power is not. Courts have an obligation to satisfy the social aspirations of the citizens because the courts and the law are for the people, and are expected to respond to their aspirations. Under Art. 142 apex court can pass any kind of decree, order etc for bringing “complete justice”.
The scope and extent of Art. 142 is very wide and has positively used by Supreme Court in series of cases. D. NEW CHALLENGE IN RESIDUARY POWER VIS A VIS JUDICIAL RESPONSE: Parliament is empowered to makes laws on residuary matter under Art. 248. That is the subjects not enumerated in any of the three lists of the seventh schedule, the parliament has exclusive power to legislate on such subject (residuary matters). Under Indian Constitution the residuary power is vested only with the parliament. But, judiciary through Art. 2, 142 plays significant role in legislating law in terms of guidelines on the subjects not enumerated in any of the three lists of seventh schedule and also on those topic to which parliament has not legislated any kind of law. There are several instances where apex court has giving guidelines on residuary matter. Some of the instances has been enlisted below: In, Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, Supreme Court has given guidelines as to sexual harassment of women at workplace. There is no legislation to this effect, so such guidelines shall have force till law is made by the parliament as to sexual harassment of women at work place.
Supreme Court held that under the Indian Constitution, no appointment of any Judge to the Supreme Court or the High Court could be made unless it was in conformity with the opinion of the Chief Justice of India. It was held that the opinion of Chief Justice was entitled to primacy. Therefore, it can be summarized that, under Art. 248 residuary power vests with the parliament. But, there has been series of instances where judiciary has played vital role in legislating the law in terms of guidelines on those subjects with does not forms the part of any of the three lists of the seventh schedule.
Under Art. 32 and 142 the apex court has showed the way to new concept of legislating on the residuary matter. Researcher herein based on his research emphasizes that though there is no expressed provision as to power of judiciary to legislate on residuary matter, it is not only the parliament which legislates on the residuary matters but even the judiciary can legislate in terms of guidelines on the residuary matters. CONCLUSION CONCLUSION There is no universally agreed definition of federation. Scholars tended to regard the oldest federal constitution, the constitution of the U.
S. , as the paradigm example or model. Prof. K. C. Wheare called the Indian Constitution as having created a unitary state with subsidiary federal features rather than a federal state with subsidiary unitary features. But subsequently he revised his opinion and though it proper to label our constitution as quasi-federal. Distribution of power is one of the main features of federal Constitution. Under Indian Constitution there has been distribution of power as: * Union List * State List * Concurrent List The lists are exhaustive, as it covers all possible items.
The three Lists enumerated in seventh schedule of Indian Constitution are drawn very elaborately and presumably all subject-matters -identifiable at the time of the constitution-making, and regarding which a government could conceivably be called upon to make laws in modern times, have been assigned to one of the Lists. But it is humanly not possible to foresee every possible activity and assign it to one List or the other. Hence the necessity of residuary power is felt. The concept of residuary power differs from country to country.
The concept of residuary power in India and of U. S. A differs to the much extent. India has adopted the Canadian model for the concept of residuary power. The law does not remain static. As social norms and values changes, law too has to be interpreted and recast. Therefore, Art. 248 deals with the residuary power which vests exclusively with the parliament. Judiciary has played vital role in expanding the horizons as to provisions of residuary power. The task of interpreting the Constitution is a highly creative judicial function.
Since the commencement of the Constitution the Supreme Court has rendered many decisions giving creative, purposeful, liberal and dynamic interpretation expanding various provisions of the Constitution thus a distinct constitutional jurisprudence has emerged. Though there is no expressed provision as to power of judiciary to legislate on residuary matter, it is not only the parliament which legislates on the residuary matters but even the judiciary can legislate in terms of guidelines on the residuary matters. BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS REFERRED: * D. D. Basu, Commentary on the Indian Constitution, (8th edition) (Vol. ), Nagpur: Lexis Nexis Butterworths, 2012. * H. M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, (4th edition. ), New Delhi: Wadhwa Book Company, 2010. * M. P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, (6th edition. ), reprint (economy paperback edition), Nagpur: LexisNexis Butterworth, 2011. * T. K. Tope, “Constitutional Law of India”, Lucknow: Eastern book Company, 1982. * Dr. Subhash Kashyap, “Constitution of India”, (2006 edition. ) (Reprint), New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing co.. pvt. ltd, 2010. WEBSITES ACCESSED: * www. manpatra. com * www. scconline. com * www. parliamentofindia. nic. in ——————————————– [ 2 ].
An Examination of the Boundaries of, and the Theoretical Justification for Judicial Review in Tanzania.

References: Art. 48
 Art. 248
 Art. 248
 Art. 248
 Art. 32
 Art. 1
 v. 
 Art. 131
 Art. 368
 Art. 280
 Art. 246
 Art. 245
 Art. 246
 Art. 254
 Art. 249
 Art. 252
 Art. 253
 Art. 356
 Art. 248
 Art. 248
 Art. 248
 Art. 248
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 248
 v. 
 Art. 46
 Art. 248
 v. 
 Art. 248
 Art. 248
 Art. 48
 Art. 248
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 32
 Art. 142
 Art. 142
 Art. 248
 Art. 2
 v. 
 Art. 248
 Art. 32
 Art. 248