Part XI of the Constitution establishes the framework for the relationship between the Union and the states, detailing the distribution of legislative and administrative powers. It defines how the Union and state governments operate within their respective spheres and provides mechanisms for cooperation, coordination, and dispute resolution. It reflects the Constitution framers’ intention to preserve national unity while accommodating India’s regional diversity. The Part includes provisions for the adjudication of inter-state disputes, the establishment of councils to promote collaboration, and guidance on administrative interactions. Overall, it seeks to maintain a balance between state autonomy and national unity, ensuring smooth governance across India’s federal structure.
 

Articles 245 to 255 address the legislative relations between the Union and the States. Parliament possesses the authority to legislate for the entire territory of India, whereas State Legislatures exercise law-making powers within their respective jurisdictions. The Seventh Schedule distributes subjects into the Union, State, and Concurrent Lists, as set out in Article 246 and its allied provisions. Parliament’s residuary legislative competence under Article 248 and its powers to legislate on matters in the State List under exceptional circumstances—such as national interest (Article 249), emergency (Article 250), or for implementing international treaties (Article 253)—illustrate the Constitution’s unitary tilt. Under Article 252, Parliament may legislate on matters in the State List if two or more State Legislatures consent to such a law, which can then be adopted by other States as well. This provision enables coordinated legislation on subjects requiring uniformity and mediation across States while preserving their autonomy. Articles 254 and 255 resolve legislative conflicts, establishing the supremacy of Union legislation when inconsistencies arise.

​

A notable addition to Part XI is Article 246A, inserted by the 101st Amendment (2016), which introduced the Goods and Services Tax (GST). It granted both Parliament and State Legislatures concurrent powers to legislate on GST, reflecting India’s shift toward cooperative fiscal federalism.

Articles 256 to 261 describe how the Union and the States share and coordinate their executive powers. Article 256 directs States to follow and implement laws made by Parliament, while Article 257 ensures that States do not interfere with the Union’s authority and allows the Centre to give directions on national matters like communication and defence. Article 258 permits the delegation of Union functions to States, and Article 259 extends the Union’s power to areas that are not part of any State. Article 260 enables the Government of India to manage external territories through agreements with other countries, showing flexibility in governance. Article 261 ensures that public acts, records, and court proceedings are respected across the country, maintaining legal unity.

​

Article 257A was inserted by the 42nd Amendment (1976). It gave the Union government power to deploy armed forces or other forces in a State to secure compliance with Union laws. It was later omitted by the 44th Amendment. An important addition made via the 7th Amendment (1956), Article 258A, empowers State governments to voluntarily confer certain functions on the Union, reflecting a flexible and collaborative approach to federal governance.

​

Article 262

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Article 262 empowers Parliament to provide for the resolution of disputes between states regarding the waters of inter-state rivers or river valleys. Under this provision, Parliament can establish tribunals specifically tasked with adjudicating such disputes, and the decisions of these tribunals are final and binding on all parties. Furthermore, Parliament may declare certain disputes as exempt from judicial review, ensuring that the tribunal’s decision remains authoritative. This mechanism reflects the need to maintain harmony among states while managing shared natural resources, recognising both the sensitivity and complexity of inter-state water issues. By providing a structured legal process, Article 262 facilitates equitable distribution and prevents potential conflicts over water resources.

​

Article 262 (Draft Article 242A) underwent discussion on 9 September, 1949. The 1948 Indian Draft Constitution did not include this provision. In the beginning, proposed Articles 239–241 allowed the President to designate a commission to handle interstate river issues following a State's compliance. Instead of designating ad hoc committees, the chairman of the Drafting Committee suggested inserting this Draft Article to offer a long-term answer to such problems. Shri Brajeshwar Prasad proposed that such power be vested with the President instead of the Parliament, but this was neither further discussed nor approved.

Article 263

​

​

​

Article 263 empowers the President to establish an Inter-State Council if it appears necessary or desirable for the public interest. The Council is intended to promote coordination and cooperation between the Union and the states, as well as among the states themselves. It may investigate and make recommendations on any matter of common interest, including disputes between states or between the Union and the states. By providing a structured forum for consultation, Article 263 ensures that intergovernmental relations are managed collaboratively, helping to resolve differences and strengthen cooperative federalism.

​

In Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994), the Supreme Court significantly impacted Union–State relations under Part XI by upholding the constitutional validity of anti-terror laws like TADA and affirming the legislative competence of Parliament in matters of national security. The Court held that terrorism does not fall within the narrow scope of “public order” under the State List, but rather within the Union’s domain, thereby justifying central legislation under List I and residuary powers. This interpretation effectively strengthened the Union’s authority over States in areas concerning sovereignty, integrity, and national security. At the same time, the Court emphasised that while such central powers are valid, they must operate within constitutional limits and cannot override fundamental rights, thereby maintaining a balance between federal distribution of powers and individual liberties. 

​