Theni's Nullification Resolution and the River Safety Act
The fictional State of Theni has a 234-member assembly. In 2025 Parliament enacts the Inter-State River Safety Act, creating a national authority to inspect dams on rivers that flow through more than one state. Theni's assembly passes a resolution, 140-80, declaring the Act 'null and void in Theni' because water is a state subject. It also passes a state Dam Management Act transferring inspection powers to a state board. The Governor reserves the state Bill for the President's consideration under Article 200. Meanwhile the Union government writes that it may withhold ₹1,200 crore of a rural infrastructure grant unless Theni complies. The opposition calls the resolution 'a constitutional joke'; the ruling party says it protects federalism. A students' law clinic asks you to advise on the constitutional position.
1. Does the state assembly's resolution make the central Act inapplicable in Theni? Explain using Articles 245 and 246 and the Seventh Schedule.
Read the worked answer
No. A resolution is not a law and cannot amend the Seventh Schedule or repeal a parliamentary statute. Article 246 distributes legislative power: 'water' is Entry 17 of the State List, but 'regulation and development of inter-state rivers' is Entry 56 of the Union List. If the central Act is genuinely confined to inter-state rivers and dam safety, it can be traced to Entry 56. Theni's state Act may operate on local water management under Entry 17, but it cannot contradict the Union law. The assembly's 140-80 resolution is a political statement, not a nullification device. If the two statutes conflict in the same field, the union law prevails under Article 254 principles; a state law reserved and assented to under Article 254(2) could prevail in limited circumstances, but the resolution itself has no such effect. Conclusion: the central Act remains applicable unless a court strikes it down.
2. If the state Act and central Act conflict, which prevails and what is the role of the Governor under Article 200?
Read the worked answer
Under Article 200 the Governor may assent, withhold assent, or reserve the Bill for the President. Reservation is not a veto; under Article 201 the President may assent or withhold. If the state Bill conflicts with a valid central law, reservation does not cure the conflict. The state could seek the President's assent under Article 254(2) only if the subject is in the Concurrent List; for Union List matters, Article 254 is not an escape route. The state's better route is to challenge the central Act in the Supreme Court under Article 131 or to negotiate an inter-governmental agreement. The Governor should act on the advice of the Council of Ministers but may use the reservation power in exceptional circumstances. Conclusion: the Bill's fate depends on legislative competence and repugnancy, not on the assembly's resolution.
3. Is the Union's threat to withhold ₹1,200 crore constitutionally relevant? Discuss fiscal federalism and cooperative federalism.
Read the worked answer
Grants-in-aid under Article 275 and Finance Commission recommendations are constitutional mechanisms, but conditioning them on political compliance raises federalism concerns. The Union can attach conditions to specific-purpose grants, but it cannot use the power of the purse to coerce a state into surrendering a constitutional position. Cooperative federalism requires consultation, not ultimatums. The ₹1,200 crore threat may be challenged as arbitrary if it bypasses statutory criteria or is unrelated to the grant's purpose. The state should seek a Finance Commission clarification and an inter-state council discussion. Conclusion: the threat is politically damaging and legally vulnerable, though not automatically void; the dispute should be resolved through constitutional channels, not fiscal pressure.