It may be argued that there are cases in which the State can legislate only in respect of the area which is included in its jurisdiction and a problem may arise which requires that there should be legislation applicable to more than one State and in that case certainly it becomes necessary that the Union Parliament shall pass that legislation as the State will have no power to pass such legislation. But for that, we are making provisions in article 229, that if the State Assembly and the Council, if one is there, together so decide, the Union Parliament will be given power to legislate even in respect of State subjects. That also, to my mind, is necessary. But it has to be considered seriously whether power under article 226 is necessary, and what is its implication. Articles 226 says: “Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, if the Council of States has declared by resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the members, present and voting that it is necessary or expedient in the national interest that Parliament should make laws………..” The main ground on which this power is proposed to be given is that in the national interests the Parliament should make laws for the States. If it is really a matter of national interest I do not understand why the State itself will not either pass the legislation itself or be willing to consent to legislation by Parliament. Why should we presume that the State will assume such an anti-national attitude? There are other provisions in the Constitution under which on the ground of national interest emergency, etc., Parliament can interfere. Particularly the wording in article 226, “in the national interests, Parliament should make laws” is something which implies that that the Centre requires legislation by Parliament in a matter of national importance, which the State is not prepared to pass. In respect of the meagre subjects which are left for legislation by the States, I think such cases are likely to be very rare. I do not think that article 226 is at all necessary. Of course, as I said, this deserves to be discussed before we come to a particular conclusion. I do not say that I am opposed to it; I would be prepared to accept it; for after all, one may come to a different conclusion after considering the other side’s views. I only wish to point out that to allow this article to be passed without considering all the aspects will not be happy from any point of view.
