The 23rd Law Commission of India held a national conference on "Co-operative Federalism and Law Reforms: National and State Perspectives" at Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi, on 22 October 2026. It was inaugurated by the Vice-President, and brought together national and State law-reform bodies, former judges, scholars and members of the Bar.
The Commission's Chairperson, Justice (Retd.) Dinesh Maheshwari, proposed two things worth knowing. The first was a "citizen friction test" — an assessment of whether a proposed law reduces the time, cost and procedural burden on citizens. The second was a structured collaboration between national and State law-reform bodies: a common law-reform docket, joint studies and post-enactment review, with the first joint issue papers to be placed before governments within about six months. His sentence that will be quoted: "For the citizen, justice is not divided between the Lists of the Seventh Schedule."
That sentence is the topic. To understand why a national law commission needs the States, an NDA candidate needs to understand how the Constitution divides the power to make laws.
What the Law Commission is — and is not
- Not constitutional, not statutory. The Law Commission is constituted by an executive notification of the Government of India, through the Ministry of Law and Justice, for a fixed term, normally three years.
- Advisory. It studies laws and recommends reform, often on a reference from the government or the courts. Its reports are not binding.
- The 23rd Commission was constituted in September 2024 for a term to August 2027. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, a former Supreme Court judge, was appointed Chairperson in April 2025, with Hitesh Jain and Prof. D.P. Verma as full-time members.
Its long history
The institution is older than the Republic. The first Law Commission was set up in 1834 under the Charter Act of 1833, presided over by Lord Macaulay; its work on codification led eventually to the Indian Penal Code of 1860. After independence, the first Law Commission of independent India was constituted in 1955, with the then Attorney General, M.C. Setalvad, as Chairman. It was set up for three years, and the practice of reconstituting the Commission every three years by executive order has continued ever since.
How the Constitution divides law-making
Article 1 opens the Constitution: "India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States." In the Constituent Assembly, Dr Ambedkar explained the choice of the word Union — the Indian federation was not the result of an agreement among the States, and no State has the right to secede from it. The Law Minister invoked exactly this passage at the conference.
Within that Union, Article 246 and the Seventh Schedule divide legislative power into three lists:
| List | Who legislates | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| List I — Union | Parliament | Defence, foreign affairs, atomic energy, railways, banking |
| List II — State | State legislatures | Public order, police, public health, agriculture, land |
| List III — Concurrent | Both | Criminal law, criminal procedure, marriage and divorce, contracts, education, forests |
When the Constitution came into force, the lists held 97, 66 and 47 subjects respectively. The 42nd Amendment (1976) moved five subjects from the State List to the Concurrent List: education, forests, weights and measures, protection of wild animals and birds, and the administration of justice (constitution and organisation of courts other than the Supreme Court and High Courts).
Two articles decide what happens at the edges.
- Residuary power — Article 248. Any subject not in any list belongs to Parliament. India follows the Canadian model here; in the United States the residuary power lies with the states.
- Repugnancy — Article 254. If a State law on a Concurrent subject conflicts with a Union law, the Union law prevails — unless the State law was reserved for the President's assent and received it, in which case it prevails in that State, until Parliament legislates again.
Why law reform needs both Centre and States
Look at the Concurrent List again. Criminal law and criminal procedure are both on it. So when Parliament replaced the colonial-era IPC, CrPC and Evidence Act with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, it legislated on subjects on which States can also legislate — and the police who apply those laws are a State subject. A national reform succeeds or fails in the States' police stations and courts, which is why provisions such as e-FIR and Zero FIR under the BNSS depend on State implementation.
The same is true of civil law. Contracts, marriage and divorce, and succession are Concurrent subjects; land, local government and public health are State subjects. A national body that recommends reform without the States is writing only half the statute book.
Hence the conference's specific proposals:
- the Vice-President urged State Law Commissions to identify outdated laws for repeal or amendment, and cited the repeal of over 1,700 obsolete laws in the last twelve years;
- the Law Minister set four priorities — continuous institutional dialogue, evidence-based and participatory law reform, technology with human oversight, and citizen-centric legal design;
- the Chairperson proposed the citizen friction test and a joint docket.
The Member Secretary put the principle compactly: the aim is not to make every State think alike, but to ensure that no State has to think alone.
The machinery of cooperative federalism
Cooperative federalism describes a Centre and States that work together on shared objectives rather than in competition or conflict. The Constitution and later practice provide several bodies for it — a standard NDA question set.
- Inter-State Council — Article 263. The Constitution allows the President to establish it; it was actually set up in 1990, on the recommendation of the Sarkaria Commission.
- Zonal Councils — five, created by the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (a statute, not the Constitution), each chaired by the Union Home Minister. The Western Zonal Council's recent meeting at Panaji shows how they work.
- GST Council — Article 279A, inserted by the 101st Amendment (2016), chaired by the Union Finance Minister, with all States as members — often cited as the strongest working example of cooperative federalism.
- NITI Aayog's Governing Council — the Prime Minister with all Chief Ministers; NITI Aayog replaced the Planning Commission in 2015.
Two commissions reviewed Centre-State relations: the Sarkaria Commission (appointed 1983, reported 1988) and the Punchhi Commission (appointed 2007, reported 2010). And in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court held federalism to be part of the Constitution's basic structure.
The Vice-President spoke of both cooperative and competitive federalism. The second term refers to States competing with one another on governance and investment — the logic behind performance rankings such as NITI Aayog's State indices.
The "citizen friction test" in context
The idea of measuring the burden a law imposes on citizens connects to the government's decriminalisation programme. The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 decriminalised 183 provisions across 42 Central Acts, replacing imprisonment for minor and procedural lapses with fines or civil penalties. The Member Secretary cited the Jan Vishwas reforms as building "a trust-based framework" for citizens. A friction test would ask that question before a law is passed rather than years afterwards.
The Vice-President also invoked the Tamil poet Thiruvalluvar on good governance and the rule of law, and referred to the Sengol installed in the new Parliament building as a symbol of righteous authority.
🔑 Revision block
- The event: 23rd Law Commission's national conference on "Co-operative Federalism and Law Reforms", Vigyan Bhawan, 22 October 2026; inaugurated by the Vice-President.
- Proposals: citizen friction test (time, cost, procedural burden); common law-reform docket, joint studies, post-enactment review; first joint issue papers in about six months.
- Law Commission: non-constitutional, non-statutory; constituted by executive notification (Ministry of Law and Justice), usually for three years; advisory.
- 23rd Commission: constituted September 2024 (term to August 2027); Chairperson Justice (Retd.) Dinesh Maheshwari (from April 2025).
- History: first 1834 (Charter Act 1833, Macaulay) → IPC 1860; first after independence 1955, M.C. Setalvad.
- Article 1: "India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States" — not an agreement; no right to secede.
- Seventh Schedule (Art. 246): original 97 / 66 / 47; 42nd Amendment (1976) moved five subjects to the Concurrent List.
- Residuary power: Art. 248, with Parliament (Canadian model). Repugnancy: Art. 254 — Union law prevails unless the State law got the President's assent.
- Bodies: Inter-State Council (Art. 263, set up 1990); five Zonal Councils (States Reorganisation Act 1956, chaired by Home Minister); GST Council (Art. 279A, 101st Amendment); NITI Governing Council.
- Commissions: Sarkaria (1983-88), Punchhi (2007-10). S.R. Bommai (1994): federalism is basic structure.
- Jan Vishwas Act 2023: 183 provisions, 42 Central Acts decriminalised.
🎯 Practice MCQs
Q1. The Law Commission of India is: (a) a constitutional body under Article 324 (b) a statutory body under the Advocates Act, 1961 (c) a non-statutory body constituted by an executive order of the Government of India (d) a committee of the Supreme Court
→ (c) It is reconstituted by government notification for fixed terms, usually three years, and its reports are advisory.
Q2. The first Law Commission, set up in 1834 under the Charter Act of 1833, was presided over by: (a) Lord Macaulay (b) Lord Cornwallis (c) Lord Dalhousie (d) Lord Ripon
→ (a) Its work on codification led to the Indian Penal Code, enacted in 1860.
Q3. The first Chairman of the Law Commission of independent India, constituted in 1955, was: (a) B.R. Ambedkar (b) M.C. Setalvad (c) H.J. Kania (d) K.M. Munshi
→ (b) M.C. Setalvad was then the Attorney General of India.
Q4. Under the Indian Constitution, residuary powers of legislation are vested in: (a) the State legislatures (b) the President (c) both Parliament and the State legislatures (d) Parliament
→ (d) Article 248 gives residuary power to Parliament, following the Canadian model rather than the American one.
Q5. Which of the following subjects was transferred from the State List to the Concurrent List by the 42nd Amendment, 1976? (a) Education (b) Police (c) Agriculture (d) Public health
→ (a) Education, forests, weights and measures, protection of wild animals and birds, and administration of justice were moved; police remains a State subject.
Q6. If a State law on a Concurrent List subject conflicts with a Union law on the same subject, the State law prevails in that State only if: (a) it was passed before the Union law (b) it was reserved for the President's consideration and received his assent (c) the Governor certifies it as urgent (d) the High Court of the State upholds it
→ (b) This is the rule in Article 254; otherwise the Union law prevails.
Q7. The Inter-State Council provided for under Article 263 was actually established in 1990 on the recommendation of the: (a) Punchhi Commission (b) Rajamannar Committee (c) Sarkaria Commission (d) Venkatachaliah Commission
→ (c) The Sarkaria Commission reported in 1988; the Council was constituted in 1990.
Q8. The Zonal Councils were created by: (a) the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (b) Article 263 of the Constitution (c) the 7th Constitutional Amendment (d) an order of NITI Aayog
→ (a) They are statutory bodies — five in number — each chaired by the Union Home Minister.
Q9. Which Supreme Court judgment held federalism to be part of the basic structure of the Constitution? (a) Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) (b) Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) (c) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) (d) S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
→ (d) The Bommai judgment also laid down limits on the use of Article 356.
Q10. "Criminal law" and "criminal procedure" are placed in the: (a) Union List (b) Concurrent List (c) State List (d) Residuary list
→ (b) Both are Concurrent subjects, while police and public order are in the State List — which is why reform of criminal law involves both Centre and States.
📋 How this gets asked (PYQ pattern)
Centre-State relations are one of the most heavily tested areas of NDA Polity, and the questions are mostly about where a power sits and which body does what.
The first form is the nature-of-body question: is the Law Commission constitutional, statutory or executive? The same question is asked of NITI Aayog (executive), the Finance Commission (constitutional, Article 280), the Zonal Councils (statutory) and the Inter-State Council (constitutional provision, executive creation). A four-body classification grid is a natural item.
The second is the list question: in which list is a given subject — police, education, forests, criminal law, banking. The 42nd Amendment transfers are the classic trap, because candidates who learnt the lists from a pre-1976 picture place education in the State List.
The third is the residuary-power question, sometimes with a comparative twist: India gives residuary power to the Union, the USA to the states, and India took the idea from Canada.
A fourth is the commission-and-judgment pair — Sarkaria and Punchhi on Centre-State relations, S.R. Bommai on federalism as basic structure.
For the SSB interview or a group discussion on federalism, the useful argument is that Indian federalism is cooperative by design because so much of the law that matters to citizens — criminal law, contracts, family law, education — is concurrent. Reform cannot be done by the Centre alone or by the States alone, and the conference's proposal for a common reform docket is an attempt to build that cooperation into the law-making process itself.
Preparing for NDA? In Polity, learn every body by three labels — constitutional or statutory or executive, who chairs it, and which article or Act creates it. Build the base with our NDA study material, follow the daily NDA current affairs, and train with serving-standard faculty in the upcoming Cavalier courses in Delhi.
✍️ Written by Hitendra Deswal — Polity & current-affairs faculty at The Cavalier. Reviewed by the Cavalier Faculty Desk.