Skip to main content

Center-state Relations

 



Centre- state relation 

There are two forms of government, that is unitary and federal form.

In unitary form there are, maximum power or only source of power lies with state, it classic example of this form of government are France Japan, China. While federal form of government, the powers are divided between both centre & state its example is UNITED states and India.

At the time of emergency India follow unitary form of government

Which means centre has more power than the state government has less powers, otherwise during normal time India has a federal form of government.  The main features of federal form of the government are the division of the power between centre and the states. In our constitution the power between centre & states is divided under 3 heads, 

Legislative relations, in the constitution from Article 245 to Article 255 of the relations of centre and state, have been divided in 2 aspects that is territorial and subject matter jurisdiction. In territorial jurisdiction means who can make law applicable over a over certain and specific territory, while subject matter jurisdiction refers to subject matter of law be it agriculture, electricity, water projects, etc. In territorial jurisdiction it forms here that how is territorial jurisdiction is decided, the most important article is article 245 it has two classes to this article 

Firstly, it says that parliament has the power it means centre and legislature is the main state. It say parliament has power to make laws for the entire territorial of India or for some part of it. 

Secondly it says that state legislative has the power to make laws for the entire territory of that state or part of territory of that state. 

Thirdly it says about extra territorial operations, it means the parliament possesses to make laws, it does not mean that parliament can make laws only fir people residing in India or Their property, it’s not parliament also possesses extra territorial jurisdiction meaning those persons or those properties situated outside India parliament can govern them as well. This extra territorial power is only possessed by the parliament and not by the state, but in case where parliament makes extra territorial for a person residing outside India and their property, in this the question comes as how will it be determined if the law is right or wrong? It can be understood by territorial nexus test Wallace v. ITC, Bombay AIR 1948 PC 118 it is a famous case for of company law it happened that there was a company registered in England, now this company was a partner of an Indian firm. Indian text authority wanted to tax the entire income of this company-it was said that since the major income of this company comes from India that why Indian tax authority has the power to tax that income. So, the territorial nexus test says that of parliament wants to make more law than the subject matter which such a law is to govern there must be a reasonable connection between both. Similarly, state has the power to make law for whole of the state or some part of it.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more