Validity of “State’s resolution against Central laws”

What is the News?

The Supreme Court has found no harm in State Legislative Assemblies passing resolutions against Central laws. It was seen in the cases of the Citizenship Amendment Act or the new farm laws.

What was the case?

• Several State Assemblies passed resolutions against the Citizenship Amendment Act and the farm laws. A petition was filed in the Supreme Court challenging the legislative competencies of states passing resolutions against Central laws. And, this is especially when such laws fall under the Union List of the Seventh Schedule.
• The petitioner argued that the States cannot make laws on the subjects in the Union List. So the State Assemblies should not give an opinion on the merits or limitations of the central law.

Supreme Court observations on State’s resolutions against Central laws

• The Supreme Court has said that states passing resolutions against the Central laws were not disobeying any law. And so, this was only a matter of expressing States opinions.
• Moreover, the states also have the right to express their opinions. The resolutions do not mean that they are asking people to disobey the law.

About Seventh Schedule:

• The seventh Schedule under Article 246 of the constitution deals with the division of powers between the union and the states. It contains three lists-
  • Union List: It contains the subjects on which Parliament may make laws
  • State List: It contains the subjects on which state legislatures may make laws.
  • Concurrent List: It contains subjects in which both Parliament and state legislatures have jurisdiction. However, the Constitution provides federal supremacy to Parliament on concurrent list items in case of a conflict. (Unless the State law gets the assent of the President, the Central law will prevail if there is a conflict between the Central law and the State law.)

Source: The Hindu