 Next class we have Mr. P. G. Herindranath, the advocate of Punjab, High Court of Kerala. I'm sorry because Punjab and Haryana High Court is so on your mind that one feels that's the speaker from that place. Law Secretary of Government of Kerala and a retired district and session judge. Besides that, he was a resource person not only in Kerala Judicial Academy and NJA and he still continuing to perform his duties. So his passion to share his knowledge is taken from the fact that even after demitting the office he continues to discharge his knowledge sharing. And the previous webinar which he did with us is already doing so well because the simplicity manner in which he explains is deep roots in the mind. Today topic just we were talking that he takes his sessions in a manner that it is understood by everyone. So we thought why not take the contours of some topic on tools of executive and legislative powers of states under the constitution of India. Is an important facet, those who have been understanding and reading the constitution of India. On this topic, I will ask Mr. Herindranath to share his insights over that, over to you. Thank you, Mr. Vikas. Thank you everyone. Very good evening to all of you. I think we'll start the session today. It is actually a difficult topic. In fact, any topic on the constitution unless you have some practical experience in the matter either as arguing as a council or dealing with the various provisions on the practical side, it is slightly difficult to understand the real scope and meaning of the provisions of the constitution. But let me tell you I've been little, God has been little kind to me because I had the opportunity though I stuck as a district judge. You know, you don't get much opportunity to deal with the provisions of the constitution but as a law secretary to the government of Kerala for a long period of five years. I had the opportunity to draft many legislations. I had to sit in the assembly, watch the legislation taking place, the votings, everything happening in the legislature. Then I had to write opinions. I had also to get documents where and also letters which were sent by the central government and the state government. That way I had a rare opportunity as a law secretary to the government of Kerala and as you know in Kerala every now and then all these problems crop up with all sorts of allegations and other things which puts the government in a country. So there also the law secretary's role is very crucial. And you see law secretary is almost in all committees chaired by the chief secretary or any other committee chaired by the ministers. We are a feature there because they always some legal matter crops up and you will have to assist the executive as well as the political executive and the administrative officers. Now as the law secretary, as I told you by the opportunity, the first thing we look at when a legislative measure is being taken by one of the administrative departments is whether we have legislative competence or not. Then we examine whether if we have legislative competence whether there are other legislations on the point by the state or by the central. And if you find that there is a legislation by the central parliament, you know the question of repugnancy may arise you look at article 254 of the constitution. If it is an ordinance obviously you look at 213 of the constitution. And in the case of ordinance you will have to get the prior assent to the president whereas in the case of 254 after the legislature passes the bill it will have to be sent to the president for assent. So the 213 it is called prior instructions from the president of India. Now so far as administrative duties are concerned you all know that it is coextensive with the legislative power. Either of the parliament with the parliament is legislative power. The administrative power is coextensive with the parliament's legislative power. Similarly, in the case of the state also it is a coextensive with the legislative power of the state legislature. Now before I go into all these things you know we have to understand the structure of the state government because everybody knows the state government starts with the governor. The governor of the state is the head of the state and all executive powers are vested in him. But this is a misnomer. In fact, I wouldn't call it a misnomer but you see though all executive acts are taken in his name. He is bound by the advice of the council of ministers. In fact, in Marunam's case celebrated one of the most celebrated judges from Kerala that is Justice V.R. Krishnayar. In fact, incidentally I and Krishnayar Krishnayar is an ancestral villages and I belong to the same village that is Kailandi. His father was one of the stalwart lawyers in Kailandi later he went to Telichiri district court to practice. And Krishnayar in fact practiced initially in the Telichiri district court and then came to the Kerala High Court where he became one of the leaders of the bar. So now let me take you to chapter two straight away because it's a vast topic. So I want to slightly rush through the matter. See it is chapter two which deals with the executive power of the state. And article 153 says that there shall be a governor for each state. And then the all executive powers, the 154 says that shall be vested in the governor. The entire executive power of the state shall be vested in the governor. And shall be exercised in either directly or through the officers subordinate to him in accordance with the constitution. That is what article 152 one says. Now, we have to understand even though in the American constitution the executive is very powerful because they don't have a council of ministers or anybody to advise them. They act on their own and there is a complete separation of powers so far as the American constitution is concerned because it is all the three organs of the state legislature, executive, and the... Legislature, executive, and the... Legislature, executive, legislature and executive and judiciary are completely in separate silos. Now, you see, so far as our constitution is concerned whether it be the central government or the state government there is under article 163 of the constitution a council of ministers headed by the chief minister to aid and advise the governor. And judicial decisions and other... In Marurams case, Justice Krishna has held that in the matter of granting pardon under article 162 of the constitution of India the advisor of the council of ministers would be binding on the governor, binding on the governor whether he likes it or not. The word used by Justice Krishna here is very crucial in this, whether he likes it or not. So the governor is absolutely bound by the advice of the council of ministers except in matters where constitution is given separate, I mean independent powers. That is where the particular council of ministers do enjoy the majority support of the legislature whom to call because who is really having the legislative, I mean the support to the maximum number of members of the legislature. These are matters and there are some independent matters which he has to look into. But so far as other executable matters are concerned being a cabinet form of government like England the council of ministers aids and advises the governor and the governor is bound by their advice. And in the words of Justice, we are Krishna here one of our best judges. He's bound whether he likes it or not. So we have to understand our constitution because people actually, governor is imposed by the central government in various states. It is one way of controlling the state government and then reporting to the central government back. And he does not actually in reality though he is appointed by the political executive who has been elected by the people of India. Nonetheless, he does not have the popular will of the people of the particular state in which he is posted ordinarily. The governor will be from another state. He will no person has ordinarily appointed as a governor in his own state. So therefore the popular will or the people's mandate is always with the council of ministers who are part of the legislature. That is why I said there is no complete compartmentalization as in message in the American constitution in the Indian constitution. So far as American constitution is concerned governor's state are directly elected. Similarly, the president of the United States and vice president are directly elected. We are case, even the chief minister is not directly elected. MLAs are elected, MLAs themselves are elected by the electoral chief minister. And the chief, I mean, leader of the majority party and the governor invites them. So this is the, we have actually accepted a simulated version of American constitution, Canadian constitution, Australian constitution and the English constitution. And basically most of the legislative relations are just as it is provided in the government of India Act of 1935 when Britain proposed to give some kind of home rule to the native Indians. They had elected this 1935 government of India Act. And under the government of India Act we had a lot of legislatures. We had our own chief ministers in various provinces under the central government. And most of the provisions relating to executive power and administrative legislative relations these are all taken from the government of India Act especially relating to finances and other matters. You will find a comparison. You will find that there is a verbatim reproduction of certain clauses in the government of India Act or though it was thoroughly debated in the constitution assembly. Now, you see 163 of the constitution says, article 163 says that there shall be a council of ministers and judicial decisions also say that the governor is bound by the advice, aid and advice of the ministers. Now, governor's powers are varied. One is the governor's power of granting pardon under 161. In this case also the governor's power is circumscribed by the advice of the council of ministers. If the council of ministers says you shall not grant pardon or you shall grant pardon in a particular case the governor's hands are feted. That is what Marurams case says in several other cases say. Even Sriharan Murugan latest decision in 2016 relating to Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. They have again reiterated these principles of law laid down in Marurams case in earlier decisions also. Now, this is so far as governor's powers are concerned. Now, what is the extent of the administrative powers of the state government? See administrative power of the state government is state government is coextensive with the legislative power. Even parliament's power, it is coextensive with that of the parliament's power to legislate. This is provided under article 162. I shall come to this aspect later. See article 162 reads subject to the provisions of the constitution, the executive power of the state shall extend to the matters with respect to which legislator of the state is power to make laws. So, if a legislator of the state does not have power to make laws ordinarily, the executive power of the state will not extend except you will find in certain legislations passed by the parliament by rulemaking authorities they are or in the statute itself power to administrative powers will be conferred on the state government or state executive except. So, ordinarily, if such extension is not there if the legislative power is solely vested in the parliament unless the parliament close the state government with the power to administrative power to administer that particular law the state government does not have power. Administrative power therefore is always coextensive with that of the legislative power. Now, we will also have to examine the legislative power of the state under the constitution. Now, so there is a proviso to article 162 which we will have to read carefully provided that in any matter with respect to which legislature of the state and parliament have power to make laws the executive power of the state shall be subject to and limited by the executive power expressly conferred by this constitution or by any law made by the parliament upon the union or the authorities thereof. Now, the executive power of the state is limited by what is expressly conferred by the constitution and also the laws made by the parliament. This we will have to remember when we are dealing with the executive power of the state because these things you have come before the state governments many a times and people have banned notions of federal policy in India the distinction between American constitution and the Indian constitution is the residual power always in the American constitution rests with the states whereas so far as our country is concerned the residual powers that I'll come to later residual powers of legislative and administrative residual powers west in the union government and the parliament, union parliament so union legislature. So we have to understand that though there is a federal policy in India it is not evenly balanced under the constitution. There may be so many debates about it but we have a strong center or of course we always say strong states obviously I am not making an emphasis on strong state but I will emphasize that under our constitution center is pretty strong enough as per the provisions of the constitution which I'll take one by one we shall go through that. Now so far as, now first we will go to how the executive power is exercised it is under article 166 of the constitution of India. See all executive power shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the governor. So you will find all by the order of the governor signed in all legislations which has been passed by the Kerala assembly towards the footer that there is gonna be a word with my experience I'm telling you there by the order of the governor then last I will sign law secretary because I am acting as directed by the governor governor has given his assent and therefore governor's name will be there it will be by the order of the governor even in audiences it is like that. So all executive powers legislate all executive powers are in the name of the governor. So if you grant pardon it will be by the order of the governor if you see some government order coming it will also be by the order of the governor and underneath the secretary to the department concerned would have put the signature and initials and name will be there. So you understand that it is as per the provisions contained in article 166 of the constitution all executive actions are taken expressed to be taken in the name of the governor. So we have Kerala governor when I was the law secretary to the government of Kerala for all five years the governor of Kerala was former chief justice Justice B. Sadashivam I had a great relationship with him I had the occasion to learn a lot of things from him. There has been a occasion where he refused to sign a legislation and send it back to the legislature. And the of course the Supreme court in fact the audience part of it which is the Supreme court stuck down the audience on certain grounds which obviously I will not be discussing what is it but Justice Sadashivam's views were correct in that matter. But see once he once it is returned to the legislature second time the legislature passes and sends it to the governor the governor has no other go but to sign it. So this is the normal procedure which happens but it rarely happens because we have a law department all law departments in India almost all states. I think except for Tamil Nadu I think in Tamil Nadu also when I was a law secretary my counterpart in Tamil Nadu was a district judge. Always I could post one of his senior most officers as the law secretary in all states. So there were places it is called principle secretary to the law states it is called law secretary and legal departments. Whatever it be the normal procedure it invariably is the district judge and so that particular state. Now for this expression expressed to be expressed to be taken in the name of the governor you find under article 299 299 one other constitution of India. Every contract entered into by the government with any person shall be expressed to be made in the name of the governor. So suppose otherwise it will be void shall the word used is shall. So if the government department enters into a contract with third party under article 299 one other constitution of India. Similarly as provided in article 166 it has to be expressed in the name of the governor. So I shall just take you to article 299 one. 299 one says all contracts made in the exercise of the executive power of the union or state shall be expressed to be made by the president or by the governor of the state as the case may be. And all such contracts and assurances of property made in the exercise of that power shall be exercised on behalf of the president of the governor by such persons and in such manner as he may direct and authorize that is what the constitution provides. No, let us come back to article 166. Now if you see all powers, you know, I have already stated that the owner has to exercise the powers the owner can only exercise the powers in accordance with the aid and in accordance with the aid and the advice given by the council of ministers. Now the third part of it is, see if you have to do something, let us say buy a land or acquire some land for the government. Then see council of ministers may have to hold a meeting and then pass a resolution and then advise the governor. It will be a cumbersome effort. It will not move forward. For everything you have to rush through this mechanism council of ministers, it is not possible. So constitutional itself is found that via media. There article 166 three of the constitution provides the methodology. See governor shall make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the government of the state and for allocation among ministers of the said business in so far as it is not business with respect to which the governor is by or under the constitution required to act in this discretion. So there are some discretionary powers given to the governor. Rest of all matters, he can frame rules and as per the rules, which are called the rules of business of the government. Every state government has got the rules of business of the government. These rules of business of the government are framed under article 166 three or the constitution of India and the rules of business are allocated among ministers, various ministers. You have the council of ministers, chief minister as I said, then portfolios are there. For instance, agriculture, finance, law, home, home affairs then there is water resources, human, I mean, then there is labor, all these matters. These are separate departments and it is allocated among various council of ministers. So therefore you find minister for agriculture, minister of human resources, minister for law, minister for so and so and so and so. This is as per 166 three of the constitution. In accordance with the rules framed by the governor of the state, the business can be allocated. So therefore the, even though it is made in the name of the governor, as suppose the rule confers power on the minister, the minister can act, therefore it is deemed to be the act of the governor himself. Now if you let us assume a situation where particular government department wants to pass a legislation pertaining to police in the state. So it will be with the home department. So there will be the administrative department, home department in the state and the administrative department's head that is the minister. Because constitution whenever the word executive is used, we have to understand that it is administrative executive. It is not the IAS officers and others. I'm sorry, political executive. Though in speech, while he was speaking to the IAS officers, he had described them as administrative executive. There is in the constitution no concept of administrative executive. Executive means political executive, ministers. Because 1663 is very clear, which says for allocation among ministers, not allocation among secretaries to the government. So secretaries to the government are appointed under Article 309 as per a statute framed by the Union government or the state government under Article 309. So far, so therefore they are not even, though it is as per a law made by the Union government, I mean parliament or the state legislature, they are actually not directly appointed as contemplated under the constitution. Tomorrow if the government of the day feels that we don't want particular service or India service, we will change it in some other methodology. The government of the day can bring the bill in the legislature and pass such a law. Then therefore there'll be about a new kind of cadre will come because his IAS cadre or India services are molded in the fashion of the ICS in England, English men. You know, they had this Indian civil service like we have Indian administrative service. It can always be changed. Now look at the case of a district judge. Can a by legislature pass a law in that regard in the point district judges in any other manner under part six of the constitution, no, can do it. Because it is, there is no provision for making laws. And in Balmukul's case, they have held that the state legislature cannot pass a law because it is a complete code in itself. So that is why in all India judges association case, the Supreme Court and held that the even district judges are essentially constitutional functionalities. Even all administrative officers under the state are all constitutional functionalities. Nonetheless, they are appointed by a statute and the statute can be changed. Whereas the judicial posts, nothing can be done by the executive or the legislature because the judiciary is completely insulated under the constitution from the executive interference. I'm not going into those matters, but I'm only telling you under article 166-3, the governor shall make rules and allocate the business among council of ministers. Now, we have the rules of business. As I told you, the police act has to be changed. Some powers from the police have to be taken away, conferred on some other authority. So the administrative executive takes the policy decision, which means that the political executive, namely the minister handling the homes portfolio will take a decision and then send it and prepare a note and then send it. And then because rules of business in the matter of legislation says that it has to be passed by the council of ministers. So when I was a law secretary, the procedure in the as per the law, the rules of business framed by the governor is the administrative department, whichever department in the home agriculture, new agricultural law should come, new land reforms law should come, then the revenue department. They will send the policy decision with their suggestions and a draft, a draft, a skeleton draft of the proposed legislation. Then it is the duty of the law department to get to that, give it a technical shape. This is provided in the rules of business itself. So what the law department does is, what we used to do is we immediately take up the legislation. I'm coming to the legislation because from the practical point I'm saying, it will be easier to understand. Now, when the legislation comes to the law department, the law department's employees are all law graduates, most of them, they've been part of the legislative process for many years and they have acquired a lot of knowledge in these matters. So what we do is, there is a rule 45 in the business rules in Kerala. There will be a corresponding rule in every other state's business rules. So we examine the content of the legislature and we examine whether, under which list it comes under the constitution, seventh, you know, the constitution of India has something called the seventh schedule. And under article 246 of the constitution of India, that is chapter one that defines the legislative relations. So we have the constitution of India, there is a seventh schedule, there are three lists in the seventh schedule. The first list containing 97 items is the central list in which only the parliament, the subjects which are enumerated in the first list, only the parliament and only the parliament exclusively can make laws. Then there is a second list, which is a state list. Power is conferred on the state legislature to enact laws regarding the subjects enumerated in the second list. Then there is a third list in the seventh schedule, which is the concurrent list. There the state legislature as well as the parliament can enact laws. Now here is a complication comes, which I shall take you to these complications. Now, under the legislative relations between the union and the states is dealt with under chapter one of part 11 of the constitution. Chapter two deals with the administrative relations. Now subject it says, article 245 says, subject to the provisions of the constitution, parliament may make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India. And the legislature of the state may make laws for the whole or any part of the state. Now, state legislature can only make legislation with regard to the state. Parliament, obviously, entire country it can make. Then 246, next time 246, notwithstanding anything contained in clauses two and three, parliament does the executive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in list one of the seventh. Now there is a list one of the seventh schedule, only the parliament has got the power to make laws. Then notwithstanding anything in clause three, parliament and subject to clause one, legislature of the states also shall have power to make laws with respect to any other matters enumerated in list three, this is the concurrent list. So in article 246, two says concurrent list subject to the provisions contained in list one, state as well as parliament can make laws. Third is regarding the subjects enumerated in list two, where the state alone has the power to make laws. Now what we do is, we actually take up the subject which is given to us by the administrative department as a law secretary, we examine law department, examine it thoroughly, whether there are any, which list it comes. We find out the entry, entry, subject entry, whether it comes under list one, two or three. If you find that it is coming under list two, much of the difficulty, there is not much difficulty, you can straight away, but if it comes under list one, the state legislature is denuded of power to legislate. No, there was one, when I became the law secretary, there was this traditional medicines and other physicians in Kerala. They wanted, they felt that the patents act as making inroads into their profession. And the state government wanted to legislate. I mean, bringing provisors to patents act, a similar enactment they wanted to bring. So a committee was constituted, the committee debated about it, they came up with the report. But then when we examined it in the law department, patents comes with the exclusive domain of the union of India, the union parliament, because it comes under list one. State legislatures has no power to legislate on patents. So the matter was immediately dropped. We did not go any further. This is why I tell you on the practical point of view, this is how legislations take place in the state as well as in the center. Now, if it is within the list, if it comes within list three, there is a difficulty. We examine whether there is central legislation on the court. Now, suppose there is a central legislation on the point. The state is not fettered from passing any law. State then under article 254, 254, two other constitution of India. If there is a repugnancy between the proposed state legislation and the central legislation, which is in existence, we have to, under 254, 254, the state legislature has to send the bill to the president for his assent. Now, this is what 254, 254 says, where a law made by the legislature of a state with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent list contains any provision to put them into the provisions of an earlier law made by the parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter. Then the laws are made by the legislature of the state shall if it has been reserved for the consideration of the president and has received his assent in that state. Now, if you send, now if the state government sends it for the assent of the president and the president gives assent, then notwithstanding the fact that there is repugnancy between the state legislate law passed by the state and the law passed by the central, the law passed by the state will prevail over the central. Now, suppose if it, if there is under article 254, one other constitution of India, if no assent is obtained, the state law will be void to the extent of repugnancy, just as though there is no law, there is no law. There was a, in fact, when I practiced in the High Court, there was this conflict between the 1897 Land Acquisition Act and Kerala government passed a Land Acquisition Act in 1961. And the division bench of the Kerala, I could tell that assent of the president does not receive for the Kerala Act of 1961. And therefore, it was repugnant to the 1984 amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. And therefore, the state law to the extent of repugnancy was held to be void. Now, the second question is, we have the CPC, Civil Procedure Court. We had order 34. You all know what order 34 deals with? Order 34 deals with mortgages. In Kerala during the 60s, I just don't remember the date. During the 60s, the CPC was amended. The Civil Procedure Court was amended. And the separate provisions were provided for the decision in the mortgage, especially in the matter of passing parental decree and the final decree. In the matter of a simple mortgage, the Kerala CPC did not contemplate the passing of two degrees. That is, one is the preliminary decree and final decree. But when it came to the CPC was then amended on two different occasions. In 1908, CPC was amended in 1976. Then the CPC was later amended in 2002. On both these occasions, the first time when it was amended in 1976, when the matter came before the division into the Kerala Icote, Kerala Icote held there. Because the later law, it abrogated under Article 254 of the Constitution, because there was a question of repugnancy between state order 34 and the central order 34. Central order 34 will prevail. Then in 1990, Kerala again amended the CPC, went back to the old position. Then 2002 amendment came to the CPC. Again, the Kerala amendment goes because it is repugnant to the later law of the Supreme Court. Now that is why there are several such situations where the repugnancy may arise. Now legislative relations, once more we will have to go. We have a feeling now after the cursory examination of the provisions of the Constitution that the parliament has no power to legislate under in respect of matters enumerated in the list to the seventh schedule, which is called the state list. No, it is not so. Parliament has in certain circumstances, it can. Now I shall take you to the Residuary Powers of Legislation 248. Subject to Article 246 say that is the latest amendment to GST matters. Parliament has the exclusive power to make any law with respect to any matter not enumerated in the concurrent list or the state list. That is because under the N397 is any other matter. It is left to the central. Now we'll take 249. This is where the parliaments overriding powers are enumerated in chapter one, even though there is a state list. Now let us look at notwithstanding any 249 mud, notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this chapter. If the council of the states is declared by resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting that it is necessary and expedient in national interest that parliament should make laws with respect to any matter enumerated in the state list specified in the legislation. It shall be lawful for the parliament to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India with respect to that matter while the resolution remains enforced. Bracket they have added goods and services that is new amendment. Therefore, if the Rajasabha with two-thirds majority passes a resolution and the resolution is enforced and parliament then is clothed with the power to legislate in respect of matters which are exclusively mentioned in the state list. Now, this is where the parliament's overriding power, one aspect of parliament's overriding power. The subsection as subarticle two says a resolution passed under clause one shall remain enforced for such period not exceeding one year as maybe specified there. So the maximum period which remains enforced will be one year. Then the law made by article 294 III says law made by the parliament which parliament would not but for the passing resolution under I've been competent to make to the extent of incompetency cease to have effect on the expiration period of six months after the resolution is cease to be enforced except as respect to the things done or omitted to be done before the expiration of the same period. Now this is what article, this is not an absolute power but nonetheless, I'm just pointing out that in certain exigencies parliament has the power. Now 250, when there is a proclamation of emergency in operation there can be a financial emergency under article 360. Let us examine a situation where the state to the government is in tortures, finances are in tortures. Then the central subpin under article 360 of the constitution of India. Then they can declare for financial emergency. Then you see article 250 says notwithstanding anything in this chapter of parliamentary while a proclamation of the emergencies in operation have the power to make laws of the whole or any part of the territory of India with respect to goods and services, tax, or any of the matters enumerated in the state list. So whatever be the matter enumerated in the state list if a declaration of emergency is made if it is a internal problem is there the declaration of emergency is there. Center has the power to make laws. So it is this federal structure is very much giving great powers to the parliament, central. Maybe our constitution's framers felt that the national has to remain as one. The vici-paras tendencies had to be cut take. It had to be, the center had to be given this power during the early Nairu's times. There were such legislations. You remember the internal emergency in 1975, ADM, Jekalpur, Gays and so many other things. See, so the center has got the power if an emergency is proclaimed even the matters in state list, it can pass laws. Now the, nowadays it is a money market because after we became a full future market economy. Many of the state governments, finances are, if they are not properly managed, center will have to step in under article 360 of the constitution of India. And then they are even budget financial, everything can be passed by the parliament. No, a law made by the parliament, which parliament would not, but for the issue of proclamation of emergency have been competent to make child to the extent of competency cease to have effect on the expiration six months after the proclamation cease to operate. So this is not an absolute power. The proclamation of emergency is taken off. And after the expiration of six months, it goes off except with regard to things done under the legislations. So these are the matters. Then we come to article 251. So under article, I'm not reading because there is a positive of time. Under article 251, the parliament may not have power to make laws, but if two or more state make a request with regard to the matters enumerated in the state list, parliament can still under article 251 pass the legislation. That is, that says nothing in this, nothing in articles 249 to 50 shall restrict the power of legislature to make laws. And then if the provision of that is there, then that is under 252, I'm sorry, it is under 252 that power of the legislature for two or more states by consent and adoption of the state legislature by another state. Now, international agreements are there. When India enters into an international agreement, unicentrary laws are there, arbitration, conciliation act and all. See, to give effect to that, even if some matter comes within the concurrent list or I mean, sorry, the state list, parliament has the power under article 232 and I have clause to give effect to international agreements. Now, the other matter I've read, 254. Now, we have understood the basic gamut of the constitution. Now, repugnancy, the Supreme Court has in various decisions. Hell, see, it is not necessary that there is, there should be complete repugnancy as contemplated ordinary parliaments. Now, I shall take you all to two or three decisions of the Supreme Court. One is Hingir-Rampur coal company versus state of Orissa, you may know it down. AR 61 Supreme Court, 459. The other is state of Orissa versus M.A. Tullock company, AR 1964 Supreme Court, 1284. Then, Bajinath Kedia versus state of Kerala, 1963 SCC, 839. Now, there were, see, I'm specifically talking about mines and minerals at central and the Kerala acts which permits the state to make inroads under entry 18, under the heading land reforms and land and other matters. Now, I shall just read to you. The state has a power under entry 33, 23 of list. That is a state list. And entry 32, I'll just read the decision so that it will be easier for us. This is what has been held in Hingipur-Rampur coal company. What entry 23 provides is that the legislative competence of the state legislature is subject to the provisions of list one. With respect to regulation and development under the control of the union. And entry 54 in list one requires a declaration by the parliament by law that the regulation and development of mine should be under the control of the union in public interest. Therefore, there are lots to say. If a central act has been passed for the purpose of providing for the conservation and development of minerals and if it contains a requisite declaration that is it is for the development of minerals then it would not be competent to the state legislature to pass an act in respect of the subject matter covered by the such legislation. In order that the declaration should be effective it is not necessary that the rules should be enforced. All that is required is a declaration by the parliament. That is it is expedient in the interest of public interest to take the regulation and development of mines under the control of the union. In such a case, the test must be whether the legislative declaration covers the field or not. Judged by this test, there can be no doubt that the field of covered by the impugned act that is the mines and minerals act is covered by the central act of 53 of 80. Then there are lot ships in Bajinath Kedia and they say that when there is a declaration by the parliament covering a particular field in respect of an enactment either under entry 54 of list one or entry 23, the state will be denuded not understanding the fact that there is no what you do is not to read the two enactments and see whether there is a repugnancy or not. The repugnancy arises when there is a legislation completely covering the field. Then the repugnancy arises. Not only with respect to matters enumerated in list two and list three with vis-a-vis one, I'm sorry, list two three, but the matters enumerated in list two, state list vis-a-vis the central legislature. If it is made subject to the law made by the central legislature and there is a declaration of that kind. The state legislation, state legislature would be denuded of its power to make legislation. Now, so far as minds and models, I don't want to take you further in this, but all we have to understand is there is a later decision by Justice Chandra Chu, which says that if two central legislation and the state legislation occupy the same field, you won't have to examine one by one the repugnancy of each provision. The state legislation would be void, would be void to the extent in the light of the central legislation occupying the entire field. So this is what we have to understand. Therefore, so much so regarding the legislative relations. Now, let us come to the administrative relations. There are also the centers, the vast powers we find in chapter two of the same. This is legislative part 11. One deals with legislative relations. Chapter two deals with the administrative relations. Now, 256 says the executive power, article 256 says that the executive power of every state shall be so exercised as to ensure compliance with the laws made by the parliament. And any existing laws which apply to that state and then the executive power of the union shall extend to the giving of such direction to the state as may appear to the government of India to be necessary for that purpose. So look at this. The union government is clothed with the power to give direction to the state government with regard to the exercise of powers by the state with regard to the laws made by the parliament. This is a real inroad. How to administer that the central government can and is empowered to issue necessary instructions. Then, 257 says the executive power of every state shall be so exercised not to impede or prejudice the exercise of executive power of the union. States can exercise their powers, but it shall not impede or prejudice the exercise of executive power of the union. And the executive power of the union shall extend to the giving of such directions to a state as may appear to this government of India to be necessary for that purpose. So the government of India feels that something is necessary for a particular purpose with regard to implementation of us with regard to the exercise of executive power. The state shall exercise their executive power so as not to impede, not to impede or prejudice the executive power by union. Now, let us examine a case where it is Kerala police, let us say any state police, Tamil Nadu police conducts an investigation into a particular matter. And the investigation is rightfully taken over by the Delhi under the, it is investigations under the Delhi police establishment act by the CBA. May be a matter coming within the domain of the CBI. And then there will be some other offenses also. For instance, the human organs transplantation act. There is an act like that where all investigations are to be done by the Delhi police establishment. And if there is an IPC offense, even then Supreme Court has held that only the CBI has same transaction if there is an IPC offense if Supreme Court has held that only the CBI can conduct investigation. In that matter, state government cannot impede or prejudice the exercise of executive power of the union. This is what article 257 says. The 257 too says that it shall also extend to giving directions to state as to how administrative power should be exercised. Now, this is how, now I am not taking you the entire dispute relating to what is there. Then interstate, these are all a lot of, it will take a lot of time for me to continue. They have already completed about one hour. Now, I'll just take you to one situation where C in the under the CRPC, this also sometimes crops up. There is the power to grant pardon. There is the power to commute the sentence. There is the power to remit for power of remission under 432. In some of these cases, some of these cases, it has been held that the union government's power is already and the power of the state government is subservient to that. Now, I shall take one is the suspension remission in commutation of sentences under 432, the constitution. Now, let us take a decision. See, under article 73 of the constitution of India, execute the power of the union shall extend to the matters with respect to which parliament is power to make laws. And article 246 specifies that the matters with respect to which parliament is power to make laws. Then execute the power of the union, as I told you shall be coextensive. It'll extend over the whole territory of India. And then when there is conflict between these two powers, the commentaries say that the central power overwrite the state's power. Now, the section 434 is also very relevant in this matter. Section 434 of the constitution of India. I'm sorry, 434 of the criminal procedure. The powers conferred under section 432 and 433 upon the state government may in the cases of death sentence shall be exercised by the central government as well. Then as a rule, the Supreme Court in KP Mohamed's case was the state of Kerala, 1985, 1984 SCC, supplementary 684 has held that as a self-imposed discipline, mercy petition would be decided by the president of India within three months from the day to process. Now, 435 says state government to act up after consultation with this central government in certain cases. This says the powers conferred under 432 and 433 upon the state government to remit your commuter sentence. Where are the sentences for an offense which was investigated by the Delhi police establishment constituted under the Delhi police establishment act of 1940s, that is CBI or any other central investigating agency or which involved the misappropriation or destruction or damage to any property of the central government or which was committed by a person in the service of the union of states shall not be exercised by the state government except after consultation with the central government. Now, if the trial takes place within the state, it can but then state government can exercise the power under 432 and 433, but then the 435 says that nonetheless the power shall be exercised when it is CBI is investigating or when central government's property is destructed or when a central government's servant commits a crime. The power of commutation or suspension or permission of a sentence can only be done after consultation with the central government in these cases. Now, this is also the law commission of India. You find the joint select committee had recommended this section 435 to the enactor because there were a lot of conflicts in these matters. So this is so far as the executive power of the union in the state and the legislative power of the union in the state. Broadly, I have said but I because we are almost, I think I've spoken for more than one hour. Thank you for patiently listening. And do I have to add anything? So because in a digital world, even the advocates can be controlled by someone asking the admin to unmute me. There's only one question not also on the YouTube. It says, is there any way to refer the inquiries, tribunals, verdicts under the presence CRPC or administrative tribunals to review or rationalize the earlier British laws in independent India and to bring in the latest deal? That is up to the parliament to our people's representative to the state. They have the power to legislate we have, of course, in the states, all these hack-nail laws, most of them are being repealed. In fact, parliament recently has done after the law commission recommendation, they have repealed so many obsolete laws. And then there is also the, courts can also declare there is a doctrine of disuse. Kerala, I quote, is in one case declared that because the doctrine of disuse. We have got this hack-nail carriages and all that, not really application, no real application for that. So many enactments like that have been repealed by the parliament and state legislatures. In fact, in Kerala, we had a commission headed by Justice V.R. Krishna, he had recommended repeal of many, lot of enactments. He used to do it pro bono. He never used to take money from the state government. And during my tenure as a law secretary, we used to, we have repealed a lot of laws in this speech. In fact, the central government has also repealed and in RNA process of repealing, which have actually become obsolete or you may say that they are of no relevance except on these statute books. And that's a right in a positive manner. And thank you, Mr. Rinanath. It was a, as usual, an engaging session. And tomorrow, friends, we will be having a session on discovery and inspection. Practical aspects with law, that is by Mr. S.R. Sromasekar. You all know that his sessions are always being well received. So do stay connected with us at 6 p.m. And thank you, Mr. Rinanath. You will stay connected on and off the screen. Thank you. Namaskar.