Disputes between provincial and central authorities
Disputes Between Provincial and Central Authorities
In federal systems, powers are divided between central (national) and provincial (state) governments. Disputes arise when there is:
Overlapping or ambiguous legislative or executive authority.
Conflicts in policy or administrative decisions.
Issues of financial control and resource allocation.
Matters concerning law and order or public services.
Questions of autonomy and interference.
Such disputes are usually resolved by the judiciary through constitutional interpretation, safeguarding the federal balance.
Key Concepts
Federalism: Division of power between central and provincial governments.
Legislative Competence: Lists (Union List, State List, Concurrent List) define who legislates on what.
Doctrine of Repugnancy: When central and provincial laws conflict, central law usually prevails.
Inter-governmental Relations: Mechanisms like councils or tribunals to settle disputes.
Judicial Review: Courts interpret constitutional provisions and resolve conflicts.
Landmark Cases on Disputes Between Provincial and Central Authorities
1. State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara (1951)
Issue: Conflict over the regulation of religious endowments and administration.
Facts: The State of Bombay passed laws regulating religious institutions; challenge arose on whether states had jurisdiction.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the state legislature had competence under the State List; central interference without constitutional backing was invalid.
Relevance:
Affirmed provincial autonomy within their legislative domain.
Established limits on central interference in provincial matters.
2. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Issue: Imposition of President’s Rule in states and misuse of central power.
Facts: The central government dismissed several state governments alleging breakdown of constitutional machinery.
Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that President’s Rule can only be imposed on genuine grounds and is subject to judicial review.
Relevance:
Restricted arbitrary central intervention in provincial governance.
Reinforced federal balance and provincial autonomy.
Established judicial safeguards against misuse of Article 356 (or similar provisions).
3. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Issue: Power of central government to amend the constitution affecting provincial powers.
Facts: The case challenged the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, especially concerning states’ rights.
Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution, which includes federalism.
Relevance:
Protected federalism as a basic structure.
Prevented central dominance through constitutional amendments diminishing provincial autonomy.
4. Union of India v. R. Gandhi (2010)
Issue: Dispute over financial grants and control between central and provincial governments.
Facts: The state challenged reduction in grants made by the central government.
Judgment: The Court held that financial relations must follow constitutional provisions, and arbitrary central withdrawal violates fiscal federalism.
Relevance:
Affirmed the importance of fair financial arrangements.
Highlighted limits on central control over provincial finances.
5. B.P. Singhal v. Union of India (2010)
Issue: Use of central power to dismiss state governments.
Facts: The case revisited the scope of Article 356 powers following misuse allegations.
Judgment: The Court emphasized strict limitations and greater judicial scrutiny before central dismissal of states.
Relevance:
Strengthened protections against central overreach.
Enhanced provincial rights and autonomy safeguards.
Summary Table
| Case | Issue | Court’s Finding | Impact on Federalism |
|---|---|---|---|
| State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara | State legislative competence over religious endowments | State legislature valid in its domain; limited central interference | Affirmed provincial legislative autonomy |
| S.R. Bommai v. Union of India | Imposition of President’s Rule | President’s Rule subject to judicial review; misuse restricted | Strengthened provincial autonomy and judicial checks |
| Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala | Power to amend Constitution affecting states | Federalism part of basic structure; amendment limited | Protected federal balance |
| Union of India v. R. Gandhi | Central control over state finances | Arbitrary financial control by center unconstitutional | Protected fiscal federalism |
| B.P. Singhal v. Union of India | Central dismissal of state governments | Restrictions and judicial review imposed | Reinforced limits on central power |
Conclusion
Disputes between provincial and central authorities often revolve around the scope of powers, autonomy, and financial control. Courts have consistently:
Upheld provincial autonomy within constitutional limits.
Guarded against arbitrary central interventions.
Maintained the basic structure of federalism.
Promoted judicial review as a check on misuse of power.
Emphasized cooperative federalism, balanced governance.
These cases collectively ensure that federal harmony is maintained, respecting the constitutional division of power.
RELATED Blog
0 comments