The Seventh Schedule And Centre-State Relations

On India’s Independence Day, August 15, 2023, MK Stalin, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, forcefully advocated for the transition of education from the Concurrent list of the Constitution to the State list. This shift, according to Stalin, would make it possible to completely eliminate qualifying examinations such as the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET).

His comments were made against the backdrop of a tragic event where a young medical aspirant and his father died by suicide, allegedly due to stress related to NEET. Stalin’s plea to President Droupadi Murmu was for swift approval of a state Bill designed to relieve Tamil Nadu from the constraints of this qualifying test.

Stalin’s statement reignites the ongoing debate regarding changes to the Seventh Schedule. This schedule classifies subjects into three categories: those under the sole jurisdiction of the Union, those under state authority, and those under shared Centre-state authority, known as the Union, State and Concurrent Lists respectively.

Ongoing Debate To Revisit Seventh Schedule

There is an ongoing debate regarding the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, primarily focused on the allocation of power between Union and State governments.
Some states, particularly those in the south, feel their legislative power is being restricted by the Union.
The Union, meanwhile, justifies intervening in state-assigned subjects when they are of national importance.
NK Singh, Chairman of the 15th Finance Commission, called for a reconsideration of the Seventh Schedule.
In 2010, the Commission on Centre-State Relations (headed by Justice MM Punchhi) suggested consultation between the Union and States for legislation on concurrent subjects via an Interstate Council.
The Interstate Council suggested that the Union should only transfer those subjects to the concurrent list which are essential to national interest.
However, Singh points out that the situation has changed significantly since then, with advancements in technology, political stability, and new national challenges, thus necessitating a revisitation of the Seventh Schedule.
Critics argue that the 1976 amendment promoted centralisation, with items from the state list moving to the concurrent list, or from the concurrent list to the Union list.
They argue the amendments to the Seventh Schedule since 1950 have supported this trend towards centralisation rather than neutralising it.

Arguments For Expanding Concurrent Lists

Some scholars are advocating for an expansion of the Concurrent List within the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution. This expansion could address the evolving fiscal priorities in the country.
One suggestion has been to add a separate list for local governments. This idea is gaining traction due to rapid urbanisation trends in various nations.
The expansion might allow for greater burden-sharing between the Union and state governments. For example, areas like employment, education, and agriculture, currently under state jurisdiction, see significant central legislation and funding.
The idea is not to enhance the power of the Central government, but to distribute responsibilities more evenly. This is especially relevant for centrally sponsored schemes that require financial outlays falling under the State List.
Any expansion of the Concurrent List should be conducted in a democratic and consultative manner to preserve the spirit of federalism. This approach could motivate states to participate more willingly if financial obligations are more equitably divided.

Seventh Schedule And Centre-State Relations: Recent Issues

The recent uproar surrounding federalism has sparked a renewed discussion on the allocation of legislative, executive, and administrative powers between the central government and states. This debate has been further fueled by contentious issues such as the farm laws, NEET exams, and the healthcare sector.

NEET Issue

Politicians from Tamil Nadu argue that the healthcare system in the state may suffer serious damage if the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) isn’t abolished. It’s feared that there may not be sufficient doctors for primary health centres or government hospitals, particularly impacting the rural and urban poor.
The NEET exam has become a contentious issue in Tamil Nadu. Governor R.N. Ravi recently returned a bill from the state government seeking to remove NEET.
The political parties All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) and Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) are divided on the issue. AIADMK supports the continuation of NEET, while DMK has promised to scrap it.
The Tamil Nadu government’s bill to exempt NEET is seen as more of a political statement, as it might not pass legal scrutiny. Education is a Concurrent list subject, allowing both state and central governments to make laws about it.
If there’s a conflict between the state’s and the central government’s laws, the central government can override the state law under Article 254.
However, section 254(2) of the Constitution allows states to ignore the Centre under certain conditions. If there’s a contradiction between central and state laws on a Concurrent List subject, the President may approve the state law.
Even so, in the case of the NEET exemption bill, the President, consulting with the central government, wouldn’t approve the state legislation. So, the bill against NEET is essentially a political statement.

Arguments For And Against The Farm Laws

The contentious farm laws had sparked protests by the Opposition and regional parties. Central to their concerns was the question of whether these laws infringe upon the federal principle.
During a Lok Sabha session on May 5, 2015, the government informed that the Swaminathan Commission, also known as the National Commission of Farmers, had proposed the inclusion of ‘agricultural market’ in the Concurrent List.
Nevertheless, the proposals by the Committee clearly indicated that the”foodstuffs” in Entry 33 of the Concurrent List does not grant Parliament the authority to enact legislation regarding agricultural markets.
However, on March 27, 2018, the government informed the Lok Sabha that there were no intentions to include the term “agricultural market” in the Concurrent List.
Few years later, the central government issued three ordinances: “The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Ordinance, 2020”, “The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Ordinance, 2020”, and “The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020” on June 5, 2020.
The government justified these laws under entry 33 of List-III (Concurrent List) of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, claiming parliamentary competence to pass such laws.
The term “agriculture” is mentioned 12 times across the three lists: four times in List I, six times in List II, and twice in List III.
In List I, the parliament’s power to make laws related to agriculture is restricted by the phrases “other than” agriculture income and “exclusive of” agricultural land.
List II, the State List, includes agriculture in entry 14, indicating that states have the authority to pass laws related to agriculture.
Based on the lists, many experts believe that parliament does not have the power to enact laws related to agriculture, except through entry 41 of List III, which pertains only to agricultural land that is evacuee property. This was not applicable to the now abolished farm laws, they believe.

Remember This: Article 254(2) is applicable when a state legislature passes a law on a topic covered by the Concurrent List that contradicts an existing or prior law established by Parliament. In this situation, the state law gains precedence but only under the condition it is reviewed and approved by the President of India. Despite these provisions, Article 254 does not restrict the power of the Parliament to legislate on the same topic. This implies that the Parliament retains the ability to modify, augment, vary, or even rescind the law that the state legislature initially made.

Bringing Health Into Concurrent List

In recent times, there has been a growing discussion surrounding the inclusion of health in the Concurrent List. The 15th Finance Commission, in 2020, formed a high-level group dedicated to the health sector, which proposed the transfer of “health” from the State List to the Concurrent List.
In a report given to the Finance Commission, the high level group stated that health should also be on the concurrent list because medical education and family planning matters fall under the same.
Under the Seventh Schedule, states are responsible for public health and related matters, including dispensaries and hospitals.
Preventing the spread of infectious and contagious diseases from one state to another is a task listed on the concurrent list.
In actual practice, the Central government has always played a significant role in shaping public health policies.
The Central government establishes national standards and a governance framework for health issues.
These national standards and governance frameworks are then implemented by the state governments.
The Covid-19 pandemic in 2021 underscored the need for health to be included in the concurrent list, as the health system in the country collapsed amid the second wave and states struggled to effectively manage the crisis.
The pandemic highlighted and intensified the tension between the Centre and the States. This was apparent in several instances, such as the Centre dispatching inspection teams to states without their agreement, disagreements over the identification of hotspots, and states’ requests for funds, personal protective equipment kits, and testing equipment from the Centre.
There was a clear bureaucratic failure at both the central and state levels, as they did not sound the alarm early enough.
However, the states’ response to the pandemic has led to questions about whether health should be on the concurrent list, as this could ensure a consistent standard for healthcare facilities across all states, tailored to factors like population density and geographical distribution.

Proposal To Bring Water Under The Concurrent List

There are ongoing disputes between states, like Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, over water sharing, creating a need for potential intervention.
The idea of a central role in resolving these water-sharing issues has faced opposition from states.
Despite the opposition, it’s been suggested that the Centre doesn’t necessarily need water to be under the concurrent list to influence disputes, as Entry 56 of the Union List provides some power to regulate inter-state rivers.
The proposition of including water under the concurrent list is not new; previous parliamentary panels and committees have recommended it.
In 2016, the Standing Committee on Water Resources advocated for this inclusion, arguing it may lead to a better consensual approach between the Centre and states for water conservation, development, and management.
The Public Accounts Committee, led by senior Congress leader KV Tomas, also supported the idea of bringing water into the concurrent list in 2014.

Is States’ Power To Legislate Being Curbed?

There is a claim that the power of states to make their own laws has been diminished over time.
This is evident from many changes made to the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution since 1950. These changes have increased the Union List and Concurrent List while reducing the State List.
The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act significantly influenced this shift. It moved crucial subjects from the State List to the Concurrent List, including Education, Forest, Wild animals and birds, and Weights and Measures.
Regional parties, particularly from the southern states, claim that the central government, especially under the BJP, has been making laws on all concurrent subjects and consolidating most of the powers.
As per these parties, the Union government is consuming all legislation on the Concurrent List, making it difficult for states to pass their laws. This has effectively transformed the Concurrent List into the Union List.
The Union has been compromising state laws on Concurrent subjects by leveraging Governors’ abilities to withhold or return Bills and contributing to delays in forwarding Bills for Presidential Assent.
In certain situations, Presidential assent is withheld without justification, effectively blocking the state’s power to legislate over concurrent subjects. The NEET exemption bill passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly serves as an example of this.
The Sarkaria Commission was established by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1983 to examine Centre-State relations. One recommended guideline was to allow 30 days for a Governor to decide on a Bill, post its forwarding by the State Legislature under Art 200. Nonetheless, the suggestions put forth by the Sarkaria Commission were neglected by subsequent Union governments.
The Centre is passing laws on issues from the concurrent list, which mandates states to allocate funds for their implementation, thus controlling state budget allocations.
An example is the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act of 2009. The Act requires significant funds for implementation, leaving states with the task of providing large amounts in their budgets.
This Act gives every child a right to education and makes it obligatory for state governments to fulfil this right, thus limiting the states’ freedom to vote against such allocations.
The National Food Security Bill also demands states undertake initiatives and provide funds but does not estimate the expenditure for states.
It also prescribes a uniform system for implementation across states, taking away their ability to devise their own schemes, and highlighting further how the Centre is limiting states’ legislative power.

Demand To Abolish Concurrent List

K. Chandrashekar Rao, the re-elected chief minister of Telangana in 2018, is among the politicians who support the abolition of the Concurrent List. Their objective is to enhance state autonomy.
Rao believes national parties strengthen the Concurrent List to maintain control over states. He argues that states should be able to decide what’s best for them without a Concurrent List.
However, experts suggest that removing the Concurrent List could lead to chaos, not stronger states.
The Concurrent List is considered crucial for the Union to assert authority over matters of national significance or those that impact multiple states. It ensures effective governance and facilitates coordination among different regions.
The states and the Centre collaborate on numerous subjects. This collaboration involves not only legislation creation and implementation but also resource generation to enforce them.
Some subjects require cooperation between states and the Centre. The central government’s support is crucial as all states may not have sufficient resources to execute infrastructural projects independently.

Seventh Schedule: State, Union And Concurrent Lists

The Indian constitution is a comprehensive and all-encompassing document that addresses every aspect of the country’s governance. The constitution also outlines the allocation of powers and responsibilities between the state and central governments.

Of particular significance is the Seventh Schedule, which delineates these roles and responsibilities in three distinct lists: the Union List, the State List, and the Concurrent List. This classification ensures clarity and effective governance in our constitutional framework.

Over time, the three lists have undergone changes. The Union list, which initially comprised 97 subjects, has now expanded to encompass 100 subjects. Similarly, the state list, initially consisting of 66 subjects, has been streamlined to 61 subjects. Furthermore, the concurrent list, which originally encompassed 47 subjects, has now been augmented to include 52 subjects.

Article 246 of the constitution encompasses the seventh schedule, which delineates the allocation of powers between the union and the states. It contains three lists- Union List, State List and Concurrent List.

The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 transferred five subjects to Concurrent List from State List, that is, (a) education, (b) forests, (c) weights and measures, (d) protection of wild animals and birds, and (e) administration of justice; constitution and organisation of all courts except the Supreme Court and the high courts.

The 101st Amendment Act of 2018 introduced a special provision regarding the goods and services tax (GST). Both the Parliament and state legislatures have the power to enact laws related to GST imposed by the Union or the State.

Furthermore, the Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction to legislate on GST when the supply of goods or services, or both, occurs in the context of inter-state trade or commerce.

Union List Of Seventh Schedule

The Union List comprises 100 subjects over which the Union or Centre government has supreme jurisdiction.
In essence, it refers to a compilation of crucial national concerns that are exclusively entrusted to the central government for decision-making authority.
The Union list comprises subjects of national importance such as defense, foreign affairs, banking, atomic energy, railways, and postal services, among others.

State List Of Seventh Schedule

The state list comprises 61 subjects over which state legislatures hold jurisdiction. This comprehensive list empowers state legislatures to effectively govern and make decisions pertaining to these areas.
Simply put, the state legislature has the authority to enact laws and govern the aforementioned matters.
The state list specifies jurisdiction over subjects like, public order, prisons, public health, production, manufacture, transport, purchase and sale of intoxicating liquors, agricultural education and research, fisheries, state public services etc.

Concurrent List Under Seventh Schedule

The concurrent list is a list of 47 subjects over which both the Union and State legislatures enjoy jurisdiction over.
The Constitution of India specifies subjects like, criminal law, criminal procedure, preventive detention, forests, protection of wild animals and birds, trade unions, industrial and labour disputes, population control and family planning etcetera to the concurrent list.

Residual Powers

Residuary powers, in simple terms, pertain to the jurisdiction over matters that are not specifically enumerated in the state or concurrent list.
The union government enjoys exclusive jurisdiction over such subjects.
Article 248 of the constitution clearly states, “The Union Parliament has exclusive power to make any law with respect to any matter not enumerated in the Concurrent List or the State List.”

The Seventh Schedule And Centre-State Relations: An In-depth Look