(1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India, and the Legislature of a State may make laws for the whole or any part of that State.
(2) No law made by the Parliament shall be deemed to be invalid on the ground that it would have extra territorial operation.
Article 245 deals with the territorial distribution of Legislative Powers between Union and States. The Union has power to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India and State has power to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of State. Clause (2) makes it clear that a law passed by Parliament shall not be deemed to be invalid on the ground that it has extra territorial operation i.e., in effective outside the territory of India.
Doctrine of Territorial nexus.-
The power to make a law having extra, territorial operation is conferred only on Parliament and not on the States Legislature. Hence, an Act of the State Legislature, if it gives extra-territorial operation to its provision can successfully be challenged in the courts, unless the extra-territorial operation can be sustained on the ground of territorial nexus.
Governor-General v. Raleigh Investment Co., MANU/FE/0015/1944 : AIR 1944 FC 51: 1944 FCR 229. It has been held that if there is a territorial nexus or connection between the person sought to be charged and the State seeking to tax, the taxing statute is upheld. Sufficiency of the territorial connection involves a consideration of two elements namely, (I) the connection must be real and not illusory, (II) the liability sought to be imposed must be pertinent to that connection.
A.H. Wadia v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, MANU/FE/0004/1948 : AIR 1949 FC 18: 17 ITR 63: 1948 FCR 121. Kania, C.J. observed that "question of extra-territoriality" of any enactment can never be raised in the municipal courts as a ground for challenging its validity. The legislature may offend the rules of international law.
State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala, MANU/SC/0019/1957 : AIR 1957 SC 699: 1957 2 Mad LJ (SC) 87: 1957 SCJ 607: 1957 SCA 867. The Bombay State levied a tax or lotteries and prize competitions. The tax was extended to a newspaper printed and published in Bangalore but had wide circulation in Bombay. The respondent conducted the prize competition through paper. The court held that there existed a sufficient territorial nexus to enable the Bombay State to tax the newspaper, if there is sufficient nexus between the person sought to be charged and the state seeking to tax him.
Tata Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 452: (1958) 9 STC 267: 1958 SCA 469: 1958 SCJ 818: MANU/SC/0123/1958 : 1958 SCR 1355: 1959 BLJR 453. The doctrine of nexus was applied to sales tax.
State of Bihar v. Charusila Das, MANU/SC/0176/1959 : AIR 1959 SC 1002: (1959) 2 SCA 369: 1959 SCJ 1193: 1959 BLJR 785: 1959 SCR Supp (2) 601. It has been held that a State Legislature has the power to legislate with respect to charitable and religious trusts situate within its territory even though any part of the trust property, small or large, is situated in another State.
(1) Notwithstanding anything in clauses (2) and (3), Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the "Union List").
(2) Notwithstanding anything in clause (3), Parliament and, subject to clause (1), the Legislature of any State also, have power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List III in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the "Concurrent List").
(3) Subject to clauses (1) and (2), the Legislature of any State has exclusive power to make laws for such State or any part thereof with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List II in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the 'State List').
(4) Parliament has power to make laws with respect to any matter for any part of the territory of India not included in a State notwithstanding that such matter is a matter enumerated in the State List.
Distribution of Law-making Power.-
The Constitution, is making the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and States follows the Government of India Act, 1935. There are three lists-
List-I - Union List - 97 Subjects.
List-II - State List - 66 Subjects.
List-III - Concurrent List - 47 Subjects.
The doctrine of pith and substance is applied when the legislative competence of a legislature with regard to a particular enactment is challenged with reference to the entries in different legislative lists, because a law dealing with a subject in one list within the competence of the legislature concerned is also touching on the subject in another list not within the competence of that legislature. In such a case, what has to be ascertained is the pith and substance of the enactment the true character and nature of the legislation.
Prafulla Kumar v. Bank of Commerce Ltd., Khulna, AIR 1947 PC 60: 74 Ind App paras 23. The doctrine was applied in interpreting provision of various List of VIII Schedule to Government of India Act, 1935. Entry 27 of List II empowered provisional Legislature to enact laws with respect to "money lending and money lenders" in the province. On the other hand. Entry 28 of the List I gave power to federal Legislature over cheques, bills of exchange and promissory notes, etc. The Bengal Legislature passed Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1946 which provided for limiting the rate of interest reasonable by a lender on loans advanced. It was contended that the Act was invalid insofar as it affected the rights of promissory note holders. This contention was rejected by the Privy Council. Applying the Pith and Substance test it held that the pith and substance of the Act was money-lending and therefore, it came within Entry 27 of List II. It could not be invalid merely because it incidentally affected promissory notes.
State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 381: 1951 SCJ 478: (1951) 2 MLJ 141: 52 Cr LJ 1361: MANU/SC/0009/1951 : 1951 SCR 682. The validity of the Bombay Prohibition Act was challenged. The Act was passed by State Legislature in exercise of powers under Entry 8 of List II which empowers State Legislature to legislate with respect to intoxicating liquors, that is to say, the production, manufacture, possession, transport, purchase and sales of liquors. It was contended that the prohibition would affect the import, which is within the power of the Union Legislature under Entry 41 of the List 1. The court upheld that the validity of the Act by applying the doctrine of pith and substance. It was held that the pith and substance of the Act fell in Entry 8 of the List II and the encrochment on the power of the Union under Entry 41 of List I was merely incidental.
A colourable legislation is that which purports to be within the powers of the enacting Legislature but in fact transgresses its authority. The doctrine of colourable legislation is based on the maxim that "you cannot do indirectly what you cannot do directly." When the legislature is incompetent to legislate on a particular subject directly but if indirectly under the colour of some other subject within its powers, it tries to legislate upon the subject not within its powers, the legislation is said to be colourable.
State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh, MANU/SC/0020/1952 : AIR 1952 SC 252: 1952 SCJ 354: 1952 SCR 889: 1953 SCA 53. In that case, the constitutionality of provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act was challenged. Section 4(b) of the Act provided that all seats, royalties and cess before the vesting of property in the Government will vest in the Government and will be realised by the Government. As the Government had no money to pay compensation it was provided that 50 per cent. of due rent will be paid as compensation.
Section 23(1)(d) provided that out of total assets some percentage will be deducted for the benefit of rayat. The court held that the legislature made colourable use of power under Entry 42 of the List II. Therefore, the Act was held invalid. In fact Zamindars were not paid any compensation though provision for compensation was there.
K. C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa, MANU/SC/0014/1953 : AIR 1953 SC 375: 1953 SCJ 592: 1954 SCA 1: 1954 SCR 1. The Supreme Court observed that if the Constitution distributes the legislative power amongst different Legislative bodies, which have to act within their respective spheres. Marked out by specific legislative entries, or if there are limitations on the legislative authority in the shape of FR, question arise as to whether the Legislature in a particular case has or has not, in respect to the subject-matter of the statute or in the method of enacting it, transgressed the limits of its constitutional powers. Such transgression may be patent, manifest or direct, but it may also be disguised or indirect, and it is to this latter class of cases that the doctrine colourable legislation has been applied in judicial pronouncement.
Notwithstanding anything in this chapter, Parliament may by law provide for the establishment of any additional courts for the better administration of laws made by Parliament or of any existing laws. with respect to a matter enumerated in the Union List.
(1) Parliament has exclusive power to make any law with respect to any matter not enumerated in the 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.
This article assigns residuary powers of legislation exclusively to Parliament. Entry 97 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution read with article 246(1) also lays down that Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any matter not enumerated in list II and III, including any tax not mentioned in either of those lists.
(1) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, if the Council of States has declared by resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting that it is necessary or expedient in national interest that Parliament should make laws with respect to any matter enumerated in the State List specified in the resolution, it shall be lawful for Parliament to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India with respect to that matter while the resolution remains in force.
(2) A resolution passed under clause (1) shall remain in force for such period not exceeding one year as may be specified therein:
Provided that, if and so often as a resolution approving the continuance in force of any such resolution is passed in the manner provided in clause (1), such resolution shall continue in force for a further period of one year from the date on which under this clause it would otherwise have ceased to be in force.
(3) A law made by Parliament which Parliament would not but for the passing of a resolution under clause (1) have been competent to make shall, to the extent of 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.
Article 249 provides a simple and quick method to cope with extraordinary situations which temporarily assume national importance. The article may also be availed of when speed is of the essence of the matter, and it is not considered necessary or expedient to invoke the emergency provisions contained in articles 352 and 356.
The strategy contained in article 249 can be used when national interest so demands and to tide over a temporary situation. For this unique feature of Indian Constitution, no parallelism is to be found in any other federal Constitution.
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, Parliament shall, while a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation, have, power to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List.
(2) A law made by Parliament which Parliament would not but for the issue of a Proclamation of Emergency have been competent to make shall, to the extent of the incompetency, cease to have effect on the expiration of a period of six 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.
Restriction on the legislative authority of the Union Parliament in relation to the subjects enumerated in the State List are removed during the period of Proclamation of Emergency is in operation. During the Emergency Parliament shall have power to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India with respect to all matters on the State List.
Farey v. Burvett, 1938 21 CLR 433, It was held
"It is enough if the measure can be capable of assisting in the nation's defence. The court is not concerned with the question whether it is desirable to resort to the measure at all and whether then resorted to it will assist in fact the defence. Those are maintain for Parliament and Government alone.
Nothing in articles 249 and 250 shall restrict the power of the Legislature of a State to make any law which under this Constitution it has power to make, but if any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament under either of the said articles power to make, the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the legislature of the State shall prevail and law made by the Legislature of the State shall be to the extent of the repugnancy, but so long only as made by Parliament continues to have effect, be inoperative.
(1) If it appears to the Legislatures of two or more States to be desirable that any of the matters with respect to which Parliament has no power to make laws for the States except as provided in articles 249 and 250 should be regulated in such States by Parliament by law, and if resolutions to that effect are passed by all the Houses of the Legislatures of those States, it shall be lawful for Parliament to pass an Act for regulating that matter accordingly, and any Act so passed shall apply to such States and to any other State by which it is adopted afterwards by resolution passed in that behalf by the House or, where there are two Houses, by each of the Houses of the Legislature of that State.
(2) Any Act so passed by Parliament may be amended or repealed by an Act of Parliament passed or adopted in like manner but shall not, as respects any State to which it applies, be amended or repealed by an Act of the Legislature of that State.
This article provides that if two or more States are desirous that on any particular matter in the State List there should be a single act which would apply in those states, they can invoke the aid of Parliament to make such an Act for them. When an Act passed by Parliament is adopted by a State Legislature by passing resolution and later an Act is repealed by Parliament, the Repealing Act, would not be applicable in that State unless State Legislature passes a resolution approving and adopting the repealing Act.
Under article 258, power to legislate is vested in Parliament only when two or more States pass a resolution authorising Parliament to make a law on a matter in List II which is not within the legislative domain of Parliament. The passing of the resolutions by the States is a condition precedent for vesting the Parliament with such power by the State Legislatures.
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 countries or any decision made at any international conference, association or other body.
Attorney-General for Canada v. Attorney General for Onterio, (1937) AC 326: MANU/PR/0031/1937 : AIR 1937 PC 82. It was sought to justify statutes dealing with minimum wages, working hours and weekly rests under section 132 of the British
North-America Act but the Privy Council held that if the Dominion could by treaty acquires powers of legislation under general head to deal with matters in section 92, such a result would appear to undermine the provisional autonomy.
(1) If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void.
(2) Where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State:
Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.
(a) Article 254(1).-
The Constitutional provision relevant for solving questions of repugnancy between a Central law and a State law is to be found in article 254.
According to article 254(1), the power of Parliament to legislate in regard to matters in List III is supreme. Article 254(1) gives overriding effect to the provisions of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact. A law made by the State is void if it is repugnant to Central law.
Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar, MANU/SC/0392/1983 : AIR 1983 SC 1019: 1983 UJ (SC) 617: (1983) 4 SCC 45: 1983 SCC (Tax) 248. "Clause (1) lays down that if a State law relating to a concurrent subject is 'repugnant' to a Union law relating to that subject, whether the Union law is prior or later in time, the Union law will prevail and the State law shall, to the extent of such repugnancy, be void.
M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0159/1979 : AIR 1979 SC 898: 1979 Cr LR (SC) 219: 1979 Cr LJ 773: MANU/SC/0159/1979 : (1979) 3 SCC 431: 1979 SCC (Cri) 691. Fazal Ali summarized the test of repugnancy in the following situations-
(1) It must be shown that there is clear and direct inconsistency between the two enactments Central and State Act, which is irreconcilable, so that they cannot stand together or operate in the same field.
(2) There can be no repeal by implication unless the inconsistency appears on the face of the two statutes.
(3) Where the two statutes occupy a particular filed, but there is room or possibility of both the statutes operating in the same field without coming into collusion with each other, no repugnancy results.
(4) Where there is no inconsistency but a statute occupying the same field seeks to create distinct and separate offences, no question of repugnancy arises and both the statutes continue to operate in the same filed.
(b) Article 254(2).-
Article 254(1) lays down the general rule while
article 254(2) is an exception to the general rule laid down in article 245(1). Article 254(2) provides an exception to save a State law repugnant to a Central law on a matter in the concurrent list and thus release the rigidity of the rules or repugnancy contained in article 254(1).
Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar, MANU/SC/0392/1983 : AIR 1983 SC 1019: 1983 UJ (SC) 617: (1983) 4 SCC 45: 1983 SCC (Tax) 248. In short, the result of obtaining the assent of the President to a State Act, which is inconsistent with a previous Union law relating to a concurrent subject would be that the State Act will prevail in that State and override the provisions of the Central Act, in their applicability to that State only.
Article 254(2) has been conceived with a view in save State laws falling in the Concurrent List from being superseded by the Central laws because of the operation of the rule of repugnancy. Article 254(2) operates when the following two conditions are satisfied-
(a) There is a valid Central law on the same subject-matter occupying the same field in the Concurrent List to which the State law relates;
(b) The state Legislature is repugnant to the Central law.
It means that if there is no Central law with respect to the subject-matter in the Concurrent List to which the state law relates, article 254(2) does not operate. The State law in such a situation prevails proprio vigore.
Proviso to Article 254(2).-
The proviso qualifies the exception contained in article 254(2) to article 254(1). The proviso thus enlarges the power of Parliament acting under the proviso, the Parliament can enact a provision repugnant to certain State law. Thus Presidents assent to the State law gives protection to it against a Central law only so long as Parliament does not thereafter, legislate again with respect to that matter making a provision conflicting with the State law. If it does, the state law would be void to the extent of repugnancy with the later Parliamentary law. The salient feature of this provision is that it not only enables Parliament to make subsequently a provision repugnant to the earlier State law but this also do impliedly repeal that State law.
No Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of a State and no provision in any such Act, shall be invalid by reason only that some recommendation or previous sanction required by this Constitution was not given, if assent to that Act was given-
(a) where the recommendation required was that of the Governor, either by the Governor or by the President;
(b) where the recommendation required was that of the Rajpramukh, either by the Rajpramukh or by the President;
(c) where the recommendation or previous sanction required was that of the President, by the President.
This article enacts that in case such articles 117, 207 and 304 where the Constitution required that a Bill shall not be introduced without the recommendation on previous sanction of the Governor, or the President, the subsequent assent of the authority, or in the case of the Governor of the President, shall prevent the latter from becoming void.
In a federal country both Centre and States have their separate legislative and executive machinery. So far as legislation is concerned, it is comparatively easier to demarcate the fields of operation for Centre and the units. A federal scheme involve the setting-up of dual Government and division of powers. But the success and strength of the federal policy depends upon the maximum of
co-operation and co-ordination between the governments.
"The executive power of every State shall be so exercised as to ensure compliance with the laws made by Parliament and any existing laws which apply in that State and the executive power to the Union shall extend to the giving of such directions to a State as may appear to the Government of India to be necessary for that purpose.
To ensure that a State Government by its actions or inactions does not interfere with the legislature and administrative polices of the Union and thereby undermine the unity of the nation. Certain powers of administrative control over the States have been given to the Central Government.
(1) The executive power of every State shall be so exercised as not to impede or prejudice the exercise of the executive power of the Union, and the executive power of the Union shall extend to the giving of such directions to a State as may appear to the Government of India to be necessary for that purpose.
(2) The executive power of the Union shall also extend to the giving of directions to a State as to the construction and maintenance of means of communication declared in the direction to be of national or military importance:
Provided that nothing in this clause shall be taken as restricting the power of Parliament to declare highways or waterways to be national highways or national waterways or power of the Union with respect to the highways or waterways so declared or the power of the Union to construct and maintain means of communication as part of its functions with respect to naval, military and air force works.
(3) The executive power of the Union shall also extend to the giving of directions to a State as to the measures to be taken for the protection of the railways within the State.
(4) Where in carrying out any direction given to a State under clause (2) as to the construction or maintenance of any means of communication or under clause (3) as to the measures to be taken for the protection of any railway, costs have been incurred in excess of those which would have been incurred in the discharge of the normal duties of the State if such direction had not been given, there shall be paid by the Government of India to the State such sum as may be agreed, or, in default of agreement, as may be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Chief Justice of India, in respect of the extra costs so incurred by the State.
The preceding article empowers the Central Government to issue directions to the State Governments for the purpose of ensuring that due respect for the Central law is given in the States. This article gives authority to the Union to issue directions to the States in certain other matters. These are as follows:-
(i) the manner in which the executive power of the State shall be exercised so as not to impede or abridge the executive power of the Union;
(ii) the construction and maintenance of means of communication, declared to be of national or military importance.
The Constitution provides for a situation in which a State Government declines to carryout the directions it has received from the Union Government.
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, the President may, with the consent of the Governor of a State, entrust either conditionally or unconditionally to that Government or to its officers functions in relation to any matter to which the executive power of the Union extends.
(2) A law made by Parliament which applies in any State may, notwithstanding that it relates to a matter with respect to which the Legislature of the State has no power to make laws, confer powers and impose duties, or authorise the conferring of powers and the imposition of duties, upon the State or officers and authorities thereof.
(3) Where by virtue of this article powers and duties have been conferred or imposed upon a State or officers or authorities thereof, there shall be paid by the Government of India to the State such sum as may be agreed, or, in default of agreement, as may be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Chief Justice of India, in respect of any extra costs of administration incurred by the State in connection with the exercise of those powers and duties.
Under article 258, the Parliament may, with the consent of the State Government, entrust either conditionally or unconditionally to that Government or to its officers, functions relating to any matter falling within the executive powers of the Union. Under clause (2), Parliament is also empowered to use State machinery for the enforcement of the Union laws and for this purpose may confer power or impose duties upon the State or its officers or authorities thereof in respect of these matters to see that the laws are made applicable to the State. It is to be noted that while under clause (1) the delegate of power or made with the consent of the State the consent of the State is not necessary under clause (2) and delegation can be made by Parliament by law.
Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, the Governor of a State may, with the consent of the Government of India, entrust with conditionally or unconditionally to that Government or to its officers functions in relation to any matter to which the executive power of the State extends.
Article 258A empowers the Governor of a State to entrust executive functions of State to the Central Government with the consent of the Government of India.
The Government of India may by agreement with the Government of any territory not being part of the territory of India undertake any executive, legislative or judicial functions vested in the Government of such territory but every such agreement shall be subject to and governed by, any law relating to the exercise of foreign jurisdiction for the time being in force.
Control over the territories outside India can be exercised by the Union Government only, not by State Government. Article 260 provides that Government of India may by agreement with the Government of any territory outside India undertake any executive, legislative or judicial functions vested in the Government of such territory. But exercise of such functions by Government of India shall be regulated by Parliament by legislation.
Full faith and credit shall be given throughout the territory of India to public acts, records and judicial proceedings of the Union and of every State.
(2) The manner in which and the conditions under which the acts, records and proceedings referred to in clause (1) shall be proved and the effect thereof determined shall be as provided by law made by Parliament.
(3) Final judgments or orders delivered or passed by civil courts in any part of the territory of India shall be capable of execution anywhere within that territory according to law.
The provisions of articles 261(1) and (2) are collectively called "full faith and credit" clause. Clause (1) establishes a rule of evidence and does not deal with jurisdiction. It declares that full faith and credit shall be given throughout the territory of India to public acts and judicial proceedings of the Union and of every State.
Clause (3) provides that final judgments or orders of civil courts in any part of the territory of India shall be executable anywhere within the territory without the necessity of a fresh suit upon the judgment. The rule applies only to civil judgments. It does not require the courts of a State to enforce the penal laws of other States.
(1) Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any inter-State river or river valley.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may by law provide that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute or complaint as is referred to in clause (1).
Parliament is authorised by article 262 to provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint in respect of use, distribution or control of waters of or in any inter-State river or river valley. It can exclude the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or any other court in respect of any such dispute.
In exercise of power under article 262, the Parliament has passed Water Disputes Act, 1956. The Act empowers the Central Government to setup a tribunal for adjudication of such disputes. The tribunal is to consist of only one person nominated by the Chief Justice of India from amongst persons who are or have been Judges of Supreme Court or High Courts.
State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Karnataka, (1991) Supp 1 SCC 240: (1991) 2 SCR 501. Where a dispute relating to distribution or control of water of any inter-State river or river valley is referred by the Central Government to the tribunal constituted under inter-State Water Disputes Act, the Supreme Court in appeal cannot decide merits of the dispute.
(1) Five Zonal Councils Created by the States Reorganization Act.-The State Re-organization Act, 1956 devided India in five zones namely Eastern, Western, Northern, Southern and Central and provided for Constitution of a zonal council for each zone. Each zonal council was to have Home Minister as its chairman, the Chief Ministers of respective States included in the zone and in the event of State being under President's rule its Governor. The Governor to act as Vice-President on rotational basis for a year and some advisers including one person nominated by the Planning Commission, Chief Secretary of the Government of each State in the zone and development commission of each State. These advisors will not have right to vote at meetings.
2. North-eastern Council.-
North-eastern region today consists of seven States namely, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura. They have strategic importance as they have common boundaries with China, Burma, Bangladesh, Bhutan and are connected with the rest of India by a narrow strip of land. Their problems are also peculiar.
The Council consists of Governors and Chief Ministers of seven member States and President may nominate a Minister of the Union to become member of the Council. The President also nominates one of the members of the Council to act as its Chairman.
If at any time it appears to the President that the public interests would be served by the establishment of a Council charged with the duty of-
(a) inquiring into and advising upon disputes which may have arisen between States;
(b) investigating and discussing subjects in which some or all of the States, or the Union and one or more of the States, have a common interest; or
(c) making recommendations upon any such subject and, in particular, recommendations for the better co-ordination of policy and action with respect to that subject, it shall be lawful for the President by order to establish such a Council, and to define the nature of the duties to be performed by it and its organisation and procedure.
© Universal law Publishing Co.