Topics Covered: Parliament and State Legislatures – structure, functioning, conduct of business, powers & privileges and issues arising out of these.
Can states refuse to implement Central laws?
Context:
Rajasthan passes Bills to stall Centre’s farm laws.
The three Bills, pertaining to the State amendments to the Central statutes, were:
- The Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) (Rajasthan Amendment) Bill, 2020.
- The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services (Rajasthan Amendment) Bill, 2020.
- The Essential Commodities (Special Provisions and Rajasthan Amendment) Bill, 2020.
What’s the main issue here?
The three agriculture laws are a clear infringement on the states’ right to legislate.
- The main subjects of the three acts are agriculture and market that are essentially state subjects as per the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
- However, the Central government finagled its way into the legislation by misconstruing its authority on food items, a subject in the Concurrent List, as authority over the subject agriculture.
- However, food items and agricultural products are distinct categories as many agricultural products in their raw forms are not food items and vice versa.
What does the Constitution say on this?
Agriculture is in the state list under the Constitution.
But, Entry 33 of the Concurrent List provides Centre and the states powers to control production, supply and distribution of products of any industry, including agriculture.
- Usually, when a state wants to amend a Central law made under one of the items in the concurrent list, it needs the clearance of the Centre.
- When a state law contradicts a Central law on the same subject, the law passed by Parliament prevails.
Why the Constitution has envisaged such an arrangement?
This is an arrangement envisaged as most Parliament laws apply to the whole of India and states amending the Central laws indiscriminately could lead to inconsistencies in different regions on the application of the same law. In matters of trade and commerce, this could especially pose serious problems.
The other option available with the states is:
To take Centre to the Supreme Court over the validity of these laws.
- Article 131 of the Constitution provides exclusive jurisdiction to the Supreme Court to adjudicate matters between the states and the Centre.
- Article 254 (2) of the Constitution empowers state governments to pass legislations which negate the Central acts in the matters enumerated under the Concurrent List.
- A state legislation passed under Article 254 (2) requires the assent of the President of India.
Redefining state agricultural markets:
Another way is to pass a state law that redefines state agricultural markets as the trade area that is specified in the Central law (the agricultural market is a place where farmers sell their produce).
Once the notion of a state market is equivalent to the Central government’s notion of the trade area, state governments can easily add specifications and additional measures.
- A state law can include a provision that says that MSP will be applicable to all state agriculture markets.
- Since state markets are equivalent to the Centre’s notion of the trade area, a state clause will be automatically applicable to the trade area that is mentioned in the Centre’s Bill too.
- Since there is no reference in the Central Bills about MSP, the question of inconsistency does not arise at all.
InstaLinks:
Prelims Link:
- Who sets Minimum Support Price?
- Articles 131 and 254(2).
- Overview of 7th Schedule of the Indian Constitution.
- What happens when a State’s law contravenes centre’s law?
Mains Link:
The three agriculture laws passed by the Centre recently are a clear infringement on the states’ right to legislate. Discuss.
Sources: the Hindu.
