A law was made by Parliament on a State subject for giving effect to an intemational agreemer signed by India. The law was challenged as violative of Scheme of Centre-State Relations Decide with reasons appropriate Writ remedy and the Forum available.

Facts of the Case

1. Parliament enacted a statute that regulates a matter contained in the State List (e.g., land use, agriculture, water management, labour conditions — whichever the factual pitch supplies).
2. The stated purpose of the Parliamentary statute is to give effect to an international agreement / treaty / convention which India has signed/ratified.
3. A State (or affected party) challenges the law arguing that the subject is exclusively within the State Legislature’s competence under the Seventh Schedule and therefore the Parliamentary enactment is ultra vires and a breach of the Centre–State distribution of legislative power.
4. The question for decision is whether Parliament had power to legislate on that State subject for the purpose of implementing the international agreement and, if so, whether any limits or tests apply.

Issues in the Case

1. Primary issue: Does Parliament have constitutional authority to legislate on a subject in the State List when the legislation is enacted for the purpose of implementing an international treaty, agreement or a decision of an international conference?
2. Subsidiary issues:
   • Is Article 253 of the Constitution broad enough to permit Parliament to override the division of legislative powers in the Seventh Schedule?
   • If Parliament can legislate, what is the proper test of validity (i.e. pith and substance / purpose test)?
   • Are there any limits on Parliament’s power under Article 253 — e.g., must the law genuinely be for implementation of the international obligation and not a colourable exercise to encroach on State autonomy?
   • What happens if the Parliamentary law and an existing valid State law are inconsistent — how is repugnancy resolved?

Legal Principles Covered (with authority)

A. Text and scope of Article 253

• Article 253 expressly empowers Parliament — “Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, Parliament has power to make any law for the whole or any part of the territory of India for implementing any treaty, agreement or convention… or any decision made at any international conference…” (textual source). This non-obstante clause removes the ordinary fetters imposed by the distribution in the Seventh Schedule when Parliament legislates to implement treaties.

B. Parliamentary competence to legislate on State subjects for treaty implementation

• The Constitution contemplates that where Parliament enacts a law truly for implementing an international obligation, it may legislate even on matters falling in the State List — i.e., Article 253 is an exceptional but plenary power for that purpose. Scholarly and judicial exposition accepts this principle.

C. The pith and substance / purpose test

• The validity of such a law is tested by pith and substance (true character): if the dominant object of the statute is implementation of the international obligation, it is intra vires Parliament under Article 253 even though it touches a State subject. If, however, the statute’s main purpose is something else (e.g., to effect domestic policy change that merely uses the treaty as a pretext), courts may strike it down as colourable legislation. (This follows ordinary constitutional adjudication principles applied to Centre–State conflicts.)

D. Judicial statements and precedents

• Indian judgments interpreting Article 253 and similar disputes recognize Parliament’s overriding competence to implement treaties and that the efficacy of Article 253 depends on actual nexus between the statutory provisions and the international obligation. (E.g. recent judicial discussions summarize that Article 253 removes restrictions of the lists when Parliament legitimately implements an international commitment.) The Supreme Court has held that Article 253 must be read with Entries 13–14 (and related entries) of List I; the non-obstante language empowers Parliament to enact laws even in fields normally reserved to States when genuine treaty implementation is required.

E. Repugnancy / inconsistency

• If a valid State law exists on the same subject and a Parliamentary law enacted under Article 253 is inconsistent, the Union law will prevail to the extent of repugnancy (Article 254). But because Article 253 proceeds notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions, Parliament’s law for treaty implementation will generally be effective and displace inconsistent State law. The court will still examine whether the Union law legitimately falls under Article 253’s scope.

F. Limits: no carte blanche; bona fide requirement

• Article 253 does not license arbitrary override of State autonomy. The legislation must in substance implement the international obligation. If Parliament’s law does not bear a genuine nexus to treaty obligations, or is manifestly disproportionate or mala fide (a colourable exercise), courts can invalidate it. Academic commentary emphasizes the need to preserve federal balance by policing misuse of Article 253.

Possible Judgment / Reasoned Answer

Short answer: Parliament can validly make a law on a subject enumerated in the State List if the law is truly enacted for implementing an international treaty, agreement or decision — provided the statute’s pith and substance is implementation of that international obligation. Such legislation is prima facie intra vires Parliament under Article 253 and will prevail over inconsistent State laws; however, the court will strike down any Parliamentary enactment that is a colourable device or which lacks a genuine nexus to the international obligation.

Reasoning (step-by-step):

1. Article 253 is the starting point. The non-obstante clause squarely empowers Parliament to legislate for implementing treaties even if the subject-matter lies in the State List; hence the State’s challenge based purely on subject-matter is not automatically decisive.
2. Pith and substance test applied. The court will examine the statute’s true object. If the statute’s dominant character is implementation of the international obligation (e.g., to fulfil a treaty duty requiring nationwide uniform rules), the law is valid under Article 253. If the law’s dominant object is otherwise (e.g., to effect national policy unrelated to the treaty) and the treaty is only a pretext, the law is ultra vires
3. Repugnancy resolved in favour of Parliament’s law enacted under Article 253. When validly enacted under Article 253, the Union law will prevail over conflicting State law (Article 254). But Parliament’s exercise must still be bona fide — courts will police misuse.
4. Practical indicators of validity. Courts look for: (a) text of the treaty and whether it requires or authorizes the domestic measures enacted; (b) legislative history and object-clause of the statute; (c) whether uniform national implementation is necessary to meet international obligation; (d) whether the measures are proportionate and reasonably connected to treaty compliance.
5. Remedy if statute fails the test. If the court finds the Parliamentary statute is not genuinely for treaty implementation (colourable) or exceeds what is necessary, it will be declared ultra vires to the extent of that excess. If it is genuine, the State challenge will fail.

About lawgnan

Understand the extent of Parliament’s power to legislate on State List subjects when implementing international treaties or conventions under Article 253 of the Constitution. Learn how courts apply the pith and substance test, examine the bona fide nexus to international obligations, and ensure balance in Centre–State relations. Visit Lawgnan.in for detailed legal case studies, constitutional interpretations, and expert insights on treaty implementation laws, repugnancy under Article 254, and the Basic Structure safeguards that maintain India’s federal equilibrium. Deepen your understanding of constitutional law and legislative competence today.