A law was made by Parliament on a State subject, for giving effect to an international agreement signed by India. The law was challenged as violative of Scheme of Centre State Relations. Decide with reasons.

Facts of the Case

1. The Government of India entered into an international agreement with a foreign country concerning environmental protection and sustainable resource use.
2. To implement the terms of this international agreement, the Parliament of India enacted a law, even though the subject matter of the law (for instance, water resources or agriculture) fell under the State List (List II) in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
3. A State Government challenged the validity of the Parliamentary law, contending that it infringed upon the legislative competence of the State Legislature, as the subject was reserved for the State under the Constitution.
4. The Union Government justified the law on the ground that it was enacted to fulfill India’s international obligations, which Parliament is empowered to do under the Constitution of India.
5. The issue thus concerns whether Parliament can legislate on a State subject for giving effect to international agreements signed by India and whether such an act is constitutionally valid.

Issues in the Case

1. Whether the Parliament has the constitutional power to make a law on a matter enumerated in the State List for the purpose of implementing an international agreement signed by India.
2. Whether such legislation violates the principle of federalism and the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States under Articles 245–246 and the Seventh Schedule.
3. Whether Article 253 of the Constitution provides a valid constitutional basis for Parliament to enact such a law.
4. Whether the consent of the State Government is necessary before the Union Government enacts a law implementing an international treaty on a State subject.

Legal Principles Covered to Support Case Proceedings and Judgements

A. Constitutional Provisions

1. Article 245 – Extent of Laws Made by Parliament and Legislatures of States
   • Parliament may make laws for the whole or any part of India, while the State Legislature can make laws for the whole or any part of the State.
2. Article 246 and the Seventh Schedule
   • Distribution of Legislative Powers is divided into three lists:
     • List I (Union List): Subjects on which only Parliament can legislate.
     • List II (State List): Subjects on which only States can legislate.
     • List III (Concurrent List): Subjects on which both can legislate.
   • Normally, Parliament cannot make laws on subjects in the State List except under special circumstances mentioned in the Constitution (Articles 249–252).
3. Article 253 – Legislation for Giving Effect to International Agreements
   • “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 with any other country or any decision made at any international conference, association, or other body.”
   • This provision gives exclusive power to Parliament to legislate, even on matters in the State List, if necessary to fulfill international obligations.
4. Article 51(c) – Directive Principle of State Policy
   • Directs the State to “foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organized peoples with one another.”
   • Thus, the Constitution itself envisages implementing international commitments as part of State policy.

B. Judicial Precedents

1. Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel v. Union of India (AIR 1969 SC 783)
   • The Supreme Court held that Article 253 empowers Parliament to make laws for implementing international agreements, irrespective of the subject being in the State List.
   • It was observed that international obligations must be implemented uniformly across India, and thus the Union Government should have such authority.
2. Union of India v. H.S. Dhillon (AIR 1972 SC 1061)
   • The Court clarified that Parliament’s power under Article 253 is not limited by the division of subjects in the Seventh Schedule.
   • When Parliament enacts a law to give effect to an international treaty or convention, its validity cannot be challenged on the ground that it concerns a matter in the State List.
3. State of West Bengal v. Union of India (AIR 1963 SC 1241)
   • The Supreme Court emphasized that India is not a federation of sovereign States, but a Union of States with a strong central authority.
   • Hence, Parliament’s powers under special provisions like Article 253 can override normal distribution of powers when national or international interests demand.
4. Gram Panchayat of Village Jamalpur v. Malwinder Singh (AIR 1985 SC 1394)
   • The Court reiterated that Article 253 is an enabling provision empowering Parliament to legislate in national interest, including on matters in the State List, to fulfill treaty obligations.

C. Principles Derived

1. Parliament possesses exclusive power under Article 253 to make laws for implementing any treaty, international agreement, or decision made at an international conference.
2. This power overrides the distribution of legislative subjects in the Seventh Schedule.
3. The consent of the State Government is not required, even if the law deals with a matter under the State List.
4. Such power ensures that India can uniformly implement its international obligations without being hindered by federal divisions.

Possible Judgement

1. The law made by Parliament for giving effect to an international agreement is constitutionally valid, even though it deals with a subject in the State List.
2. The challenge by the State Government on the ground of violation of the Centre-State legislative scheme cannot succeed because Article 253 acts as a special constitutional provision overriding Articles 245–246 and the Seventh Schedule.
3. The Supreme Court would likely uphold the validity of the law, citing Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel’s case and emphasizing that international obligations require a unified national response.
4. The Court may observe that while federalism is part of the basic structure, the Constitution itself provides flexibility to Parliament under Article 253 to act in national interest.
5. Therefore, the law enacted by Parliament in this case is valid, constitutional, and enforceable throughout India, as it is made pursuant to a treaty obligation under Article 253.

About lawgnan

Gain in-depth understanding of Parliament’s constitutional authority under Article 253 to legislate even on State List subjects for implementing international agreements. Learn how this power ensures India’s uniform compliance with global treaties while maintaining federal balance. Understand the relevance of Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel v. Union of India, Union of India v. H.S. Dhillon, and State of West Bengal v. Union of India in shaping this principle. Visit Lawgnan.in for detailed legal insights, constitutional analyses, and case briefs that help you master Indian Constitutional Law and international obligation-related powers.