Agriculture is essentially a state subject. Yet farmers of the country have been protesting on the outskirts of Delhi against the Narendra Modi government – and not any state government – for the last over two months. This is obviously because the Centre had in September last enacted three farm laws, which, the farmers strongly feel, would seriously affect them and would open the gate for the big business-houses to make an entry into this sector.
Though the Centre has its own points to justify its role in legislating laws on agriculture, some legal experts and farmers question the validity of the Centre’s action.
No doubt there exists some scope in the Constitution for the Centre to legislate laws on a State Subject like agriculture.
There are 100 Subjects in Union List, 61 in the State List and 52 in the Concurrent List of the Constitution. This was not the figure at the time of implementation of our Constitution on January 26, 1950. The changes have been made through the Constitutional Amendments made in the past seven decades. Originally the Union List included 97 Subjects, State List 66 and Concurrent list 47 Subjects. Several times State Subjects have been transferred to the Union or Concurrent List.
For example, five Subjects were transferred from the State List to Concurrent Lists in the 42nd Constitution Amendment during Emergency. The 42nd Constitution Amendment is also called mini-Constitution as many big changes were brought about in the Constitution.
Those included in the Concurrent List were Education; Forest, Protection of Wild Animals and Birds; Weights and Measures; Administration of Justice and Constitution and Organisation of all Courts except the Supreme Court and the High Courts.
Parliament can make laws on five state Subjects, especially if the matter relates to international treaty, inter-state disputes, etc.
The Centre has enacted three farm laws last year on the basis of the following Subjects:
33(b) of the Concurrent List includes “Trade and commerce in, and the production, supply and distribution of – foodstuffs, including edible oilseeds and oils.”
Similarly, the Union List 42 includes “Inter-State Trade and Commerce”.
In that way the Centre can legislate law on matters related to agriculture.
However, there are critics who are of the view that gradually the Centre is not abiding by the true spirit of Federalism. For example, education – barring central universities – was essentially a State Subject but it was later included (as mentioned above) in the Concurrent List in mid-1970s. But the process appears to have started with the establishment of Central Board of Secondary Education on November 3, 1962 and Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on December 15, 1963. The purpose was to set up schools for the children of those central government employees who work in transferable jobs. Gradually, the whole concept got diluted. Both CBSE and KVS come under the Ministry of Education.
At present there are 1,245 Kendriya Vidyalayas in India and three abroad. In the same way there are about 21,500 CBSE-affiliated schools in India alone, not to speak of those outside.
The mushroom growth of CBSE schools, seriously affected the functioning of the state government schools all over the country. Not to speak of elite, now even the lower middle class people, pay through their nose, to get their children enrolled in CBSE-affiliated schools.
The standard of the state government schools started falling and they are now a victim of neglect. This is so notwithstanding the fact that state government schools have produced excellent talents in the past.
In the same way law and order and normal policing, not Central Reserve Police Force, come under the State Subject. Even the Central Bureau of Investigation, which comes under the Ministry of Home, can take up any probe only after the recommendation by the state government.
But many legal experts question the constitution of National Investigation Agency on December 31, 2008 after the terrorists’ attack in Mumbai on November 26 the same year. Though the law was enacted during the then Manmohan Singh government tenure, on January 15, 2020 the Congress government of Chhattisgarh moved the Supreme Court, seeking to declare the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 as un-Constitutional. It argued that the NIA Act is ultra vires to the Constitution and is beyond legislative competence of Parliament as policing is a State Subject.
The state government pleaded that the NIA Act, in the present form, leaves no room for co-ordination and pre-condition of consent in any form by the Central government from the state government, which clearly is against the idea of state sovereignty as envisaged under the Constitution.
However, it needs to be mentioned that after July 2019 Amendment in the NIA Act the jurisdiction of NIA was expanded and it became a more powerful agency. The number of offences it can investigate has also increased. Herein lies the argument of the state government.
A day before the Chhattisgarh government’s move, the Kerala government of Left Democratic Front challenged the Citizenship Amendment Act also under Article 131 of the Constitution. They are of the view that this was another instance of the Centre’s encroachment into the State matter.
Various state governments, especially of the rival political parties, often accuse the Centre of usurping into the State Subjects. The imposition of Article 356, that is imposition of President’s Rule, is the one such issue and the Supreme Court has made several interventions.
Another point of tussle between the Centre and the states is over the centrally-sponsored schemes, the most recent case being West Bengal over the implementation of PM Kisan Samman Nidhi under which each farmer gets Rs 6,000 annually.
As normally the people are not very well aware about the Union List, Concurrent List and State List politicians often misguide them at the time of election to attract votes.
Take the example of Bihar election of 2010 in which the Nitish Kumar-led NDA won by a thumping majority. No doubt the state government did take some initiatives on the development front yet the truth was that most of the works which it cited to win election were done by the Centre. For example, the National Highway and Railway come in the Union list yet the construction of NHs was also highlighted as the achievements of the Nitish Kumar government.
The then railway minister Lalu Prasad brought projects worth Rs 52,000 crore during the five-year term between 2004 and 2009. The then rural development minister in the Manmohan government, Raghuvansh Prasad Singh, made generous grant in Prime Minister Gram Sadak Yojana. These huge amounts of investments done by the Centre helped Bihar achieve the highest growth rate in the country. After that the same Nitish Kumar government failed to maintain the tempo as the Centre is not so generous now.
The tragedy is that it was only after the death of Raghuvansh on September 13 last that the media in Bihar highlighted the fact that the rural roads in Bihar had undergone a big facelift largely because of him.