Division of Powers in India’s Constitution: Balancing Environment and Development

India’s Constitution doesn’t assign environmental protection to a single level of government. Instead, it distributes legislative powers across the Union, State, and Concurrent Lists – creating a layered system where both Parliament and State Legislatures play active roles in addressing environmental challenges. This division, outlined primarily in Article 246 and the Seventh Schedule, shapes how India makes and enforces its environmental laws. Understanding this structure is essential for grasping why some environmental laws come from the Centre, others from the States, and many from both working together.

The three-list system and the environment 🔗

India’s federal structure divides legislative subjects into three categories under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution: the Union List (List I), the State List (List II), and the Concurrent List (List III). Each list assigns specific areas to Parliament, State Legislatures, or both. Environmental matters don’t sit neatly in one list – they are scattered across all three, reflecting the multi-layered nature of ecological governance.

The Union List: central control over national resources 🔗

The Union List contains subjects over which Parliament has exclusive legislative authority. Several entries here have direct environmental implications. These include regulation of oil fields, mines and mineral development, atomic energy, inter-state rivers, major ports, and regulation of air traffic and inter-state transportation. Because these subjects often cross state boundaries or involve nationally strategic resources, only the central government legislates on them. For instance, regulation of nuclear energy inherently requires a single national framework given the safety and security concerns involved.

The State List: local governance for public health and sanitation 🔗

The State List covers subjects that are best managed at the regional level. Key environmental entries here include public health and sanitation, water supply, irrigation and drainage, agriculture, and land management. These are areas where conditions vary significantly from state to state. A water supply programme in Rajasthan, for example, faces entirely different challenges than one in Kerala. State Legislatures hold exclusive power to make laws on these subjects, allowing policies to be tailored to local needs and conditions.

An important point: “water” as a subject (water supply, irrigation, canals, drainage) falls under the State List. This means that in normal circumstances, Parliament cannot directly legislate on water-related issues without the cooperation of State Legislatures – a fact that had significant consequences when India needed a national law on water pollution.

The Concurrent List: shared responsibility for forests, wildlife, and pollution 🔗

The Concurrent List is where the most significant environmental subjects reside. Both Parliament and State Legislatures can make laws on matters in this list. Key environmental entries include forests, protection of wild animals and birds, and mines and minerals not covered by the Union List. This shared jurisdiction makes sense because environmental challenges like deforestation or wildlife poaching require both national policy coordination and state-level enforcement.

The 42nd Constitutional Amendment of 1976 was a watershed moment. It transferred “forests” and “protection of wild animals and birds” from the State List to the Concurrent List. This gave Parliament the power to legislate on these subjects alongside the States. The same amendment also introduced Article 48A, directing the State to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife, and Article 51A(g), which made it a fundamental duty of every citizen to protect the natural environment.

How conflict between central and state laws is resolved 🔗

When both Parliament and State Legislatures can legislate on the same subject, overlaps and contradictions are inevitable. The Constitution provides a clear mechanism to handle this through Article 254, which deals with inconsistencies between central and state laws on Concurrent List subjects.

The doctrine of repugnancy under Article 254 🔗

Article 254(1) establishes a straightforward rule: if a state law on a Concurrent List matter conflicts with a central law, the central law prevails and the state law becomes void to the extent of the inconsistency. This applies regardless of whether Parliament passed its law before or after the State Legislature enacted the conflicting provision.

For the doctrine to apply, three conditions must generally be met. First, both laws must relate to a subject in the Concurrent List. Second, there must be a direct and irreconcilable conflict between them. Third, it must be impossible to comply with one law without violating the other. If both laws can operate independently without clashing, there is no repugnancy.

Consider a practical scenario: if Parliament passes a national law setting minimum standards for forest conservation, and a state enacts its own law with lower standards on the same subject, the central law would override the state law where the two conflict.

The presidential assent exception 🔗

Article 254(2) provides an important exception. A state law that conflicts with a central law on a Concurrent List subject can still prevail within that state – but only if it has been reserved for the President’s consideration and has received Presidential assent. This mechanism allows states to address unique local circumstances that a uniform central law may not adequately cover.

However, there’s a critical caveat. Even after a state law receives Presidential assent, Parliament retains the power to enact a new law on the same subject at any time – including one that overrides the state law that received assent. So this exception provides flexibility for states, but it doesn’t permanently shield state legislation from central override.

The Supreme Court has reinforced this framework in several decisions. In the landmark M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India (1979) case, the Court laid down detailed tests for determining when repugnancy exists and confirmed that central law takes precedence in cases of irreconcilable conflict on Concurrent List subjects.

Parliament’s power to legislate in the national interest 🔗

India’s Constitution doesn’t limit Parliament to just the Union List and Concurrent List. Several provisions allow it to legislate even on State List subjects under specific circumstances. These provisions have been critically important in building India’s environmental law framework.

Article 249: legislation in the national interest 🔗

Article 249 allows Parliament to legislate on any subject in the State List if the Rajya Sabha passes a resolution by a two-thirds majority declaring it necessary in the national interest. Such legislation remains valid for one year but can be extended through fresh resolutions. While this power hasn’t been frequently invoked for environmental matters, it provides a constitutional safety net for situations where a national response is urgently needed on a state subject.

Article 252: cooperative federalism in action 🔗

Article 252 represents a more collaborative approach. It allows Parliament to legislate on a State List subject if two or more State Legislatures pass resolutions requesting central legislation on that matter. The resulting law applies only to those states that passed the resolution, though other states can adopt it later.

This is precisely how India got its first major pollution control law – the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. Since “water” is a State List subject, Parliament could not directly legislate on water pollution. The solution? Twelve states – including Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Karnataka, Kerala, and West Bengal – passed resolutions under Article 252(1), requesting Parliament to enact a uniform water pollution law. Parliament then enacted the Water Act, which applied initially to those twelve states and the Union Territories. Other states adopted it subsequently.

This mechanism demonstrates cooperative federalism at its best: states voluntarily surrendering part of their exclusive legislative domain to achieve a common environmental goal that no single state could address alone. Water pollution, after all, does not respect state boundaries – rivers flow through multiple states, and upstream industrial discharge affects downstream communities.

Once enacted under Article 252, only Parliament can amend or repeal the law. The requesting states cannot unilaterally modify it. This ensures uniformity in the legal framework while keeping the process state-initiated.

Article 253: implementing international commitments 🔗

Article 253 gives Parliament the power to make laws for implementing any international treaty, agreement, or convention. This is particularly significant for environmental law because many of India’s environmental statutes were enacted to fulfil international commitments.

The Environment (Protection) Act of 1986 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1981 are prime examples. Their preambles explicitly state that they were enacted to implement the decisions taken at the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm. Under Article 253, Parliament could legislate on these subjects regardless of which list they fall under, because the legislation was implementing international obligations.

This provision gives the central government significant reach in environmental matters. If India signs an international climate agreement or a biodiversity convention, Parliament can enact domestic legislation to honour those commitments – even if the subjects covered fall within the State List.

The 42nd Amendment: a turning point 🔗

No discussion of environmental legislative powers in India is complete without understanding the impact of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment of 1976. This amendment fundamentally reshaped the environmental legislative landscape in three ways.

First, it moved “forests” and “protection of wild animals and birds” from the State List to the Concurrent List, giving Parliament concurrent jurisdiction over these critical environmental subjects. Before this amendment, these were exclusively state matters, leading to inconsistent protection standards across the country.

Second, it introduced Article 48A as a Directive Principle of State Policy, directing the State to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife. Third, it added Article 51A(g), creating a fundamental duty for every Indian citizen to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife.

Together, these changes placed environmental protection firmly within the constitutional framework as both a governmental obligation and a civic responsibility. They also significantly expanded Parliament’s ability to enact uniform environmental legislation across the country.

The role of the judiciary in balancing powers 🔗

India’s judiciary has played an active role in interpreting and enforcing the division of environmental legislative powers. Courts have repeatedly intervened when governments – at either level – have failed to discharge their constitutional duties.

In the Ganga Pollution case, the Supreme Court directed both central and state governments, along with local municipalities, to take concrete steps to prevent river pollution. The Court noted that despite numerous laws at both central and state levels imposing duties on various bodies to prevent water pollution, many provisions had remained only on paper.

Similarly, in the Taj Mahal case, the Supreme Court ordered the relocation of polluting industries from the Taj Trapezium Zone, applying principles of sustainable development to balance industrial interests with environmental protection. The Court specified the rights and duties of affected workers while ensuring that environmental degradation was halted.

These judicial interventions reinforce an important principle: the division of legislative powers between the Centre and States is not meant to create gaps in environmental governance. Where one level of government fails, the courts have shown willingness to hold them accountable under constitutional obligations.

Balancing federalism with effective environmental governance 🔗

India’s approach to dividing environmental legislative powers reflects a careful balancing act. Purely local matters like sanitation and water supply stay with the states. Subjects requiring national coordination – like inter-state rivers and atomic energy – rest with the Centre. And subjects needing both national policy and local implementation – like forests and wildlife – sit in the Concurrent List.

This system isn’t without challenges. State governments sometimes view central environmental legislation as encroachment on their autonomy. The 2024 amendments to the Water Act, for instance, drew criticism from some political parties and civil society groups who argued the changes centralised powers excessively while weakening enforcement. On the other hand, allowing too much state-level variation in environmental standards can create a “race to the bottom,” where states lower protections to attract industrial investment.

The constitutional framework provides enough flexibility to manage these tensions. Articles 249, 252, and 253 give Parliament pathways to legislate on state subjects when the situation demands it. Article 254 ensures central law prevails in case of conflict on concurrent subjects while still allowing states to seek presidential assent for divergent laws. And the judiciary serves as the final arbiter, ensuring that neither level of government neglects its environmental obligations.

What do you think? Does the current division of environmental legislative powers strike the right balance between national uniformity and regional flexibility? Should more environmental subjects be moved to the Concurrent List to ensure stronger central oversight, or does that risk undermining the states’ ability to address their unique ecological challenges?

References

1. https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-246-subject-matter-of-laws-made-by-parliament-and-by-the-legislatures-of-states/
2. https://www.ecology.edu/environmental-legislation.html
3. https://www.juscorpus.com/relationship-between-environmental-protection-and-constitutional-provisions/
4. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-3906-constitutional-provisions-for-protection-of-environment.html
5. https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-254-inconsistency-between-laws-made-by-parliament-and-laws-made-by-the-legislatures-of-states/
6. https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/doctrines/constitution-of-india-doct/doctrine-of-repugnancy
7. https://blog.ipleaders.in/need-know-doctrine-repugnancy/
8. https://www.gktoday.in/article-252/
9. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/867156/
10. https://lawnotes.co/constitutional-provisions-for-environmental-protection-in-india/
11. https://testbook.com/ugc-net-law/constitutional-and-legal-framework-for-protection-of-environment-in-india
12. https://www.ecology.edu/policy&constitution.html
13. https://blog.ipleaders.in/constitution-environment-provisions/
14. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/environment/centralisation-of-powers-diluted-laws-weak-water-act-further-diluted-by-latest-amendments-say-experts-94487