JOHN LOCKE in his SECOND TREATISE ON CIVIL GOVERNMENT says :-
The legislative cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands: for it being but a delegated power from the people, they who have it cannot pass it over to others. The people alone can appoint the form of the common-wealth, which is by constituting the legislative, and appointing in whose hands that shall be. And when the people have said, We will submit to rules, and be governed by laws made by such men, and in such forms, no body else can say other men shall make laws for them; nor can the people be bound by any laws, but such as are enacted by those whom they have chosen, and authorized to make laws for them. The power of the legislative, being derived from the people by a positive voluntary grant and institution, can be no other than what that positive grant conveyed, which being only to make laws, and not to make legislators, the legislative can have no power to transfer their authority of making laws, and place it in other hands.
The Constitution of India, divides the LEGISLATIVE POWERS of the so called Central Government and the State Governments in the SEVENTH SCHEDULE to the Constitution of India. There are three lists mentioned therein, which are called the UNION LIST or LIST I; STATE LIST or List II and CONCURRENT LIST. LIST I and LIST II are mutually exclusive, which means the domains mentioned in each does not overlap with the other list.
So, essentially when we elect Legislators to the Parliament, we are electing persons to enact laws mentioned in List I; likewise, when we elect persons to the State legislature, we are electing persons to LEGISLATE on the domains mentioned in List II. Therefore, the CENTRAL GOVERNMENT is distinct from the STATE GOVERNMENTS in STRUCTURES as well as FUNCTIONS. Unfortunately, in India, we have given more importance to the GOVERNMENTS than the LEGISLATURES. The Governmental powers are adjunct to the LEGISLATIVE POWERS not the other way around.
SO when elections take place in the various states, there is no such thing as NATIONAL PARTIES or REGIONAL parties in the true sense as seen from the Constitutional perspective, even though for easier understanding, THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE’S ACT 1951 may have such definitions.
SO today in Uttar Pradesh there is a change in the composition of the STATE LEGISLATIVE assembly, consequently the State Government of Uttar Pradesh is to be headed by the person who commands the support of the State Legislature which is to be reconstituted. It is not as if the Government formation was the objective of the elections. It is a democratic process of electing the Legislators who in turn support a government which is administered the OATH OF OFFICE.
However these fundamentals have been lost sight of and the GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS have taken precedence over LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS in the minds of the electorate. What a pity!
This is the reason why we call the governments as National Government erroneously. They should be called the LIST I government and the State Governments as LIST II government. This would enormously help the citizens to recognize the importance of the State governments and the LIMITATIONS of the Central Government. In consequence thereof, we call some parties as NATIONAL PARTIES and REGIONAL PARTIES! When the legislative competence are clearly defined, why exalt a legislature beyond the role defined by the Constitution?
So what does one mean by HIGH COMMAND? When Legislative Functions do not overlap, do the parties which compete in many LIST II elections of different states call themselves “NATIONAL PARTIES”? Nay. Exalted though it may sound, there is no functional use or constitutional basis to such nomenclature. In any case it is not how many states a party competed, but in how many LEGISLATURES they have the majority to get their bills passed.
If i have not made myself clear, let me put it this way. If elections are held for the List II legislature, then it means that the issues that the legislators who would be elected could legislate on are issues relating to POLICE, PUBLIC ORDER, PUBLIC HEALTH, LIQUORS, GAMBLING, LAND REVENUE, AGRICULTURE, TRANSPORT (other than railways, airways, international water ways and national highways), MONEY LENDING, TOLLS and such like which are mentioned in LIST II of the SEVENTH SCHEDULE to the Constitution of India.
If we are electing a LIST I Legislator to the Parliament, then the issues which fall within their exclusive jurisdiction should be our consideration. Which means the issues should relate to RAILWAYS, DEFENCE, TELECOMMUNICATIONS, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS, CITIZENSHIP ISSUES, FOREIGN AFFAIRS, SHIPPING, AIRWAYS, CURRENCY REGULATIONS, FOREIGN LOANS, POST & TELEGRAPHS, INSURANCE, BANKING, INCOME TAX, CENTRAL EXCISEABLE GOODS, ETC which are mentioned in LIST I of the VII Schedule.
The only overlapping areas are in List III which are called CONCURRENT LIST, containing CRIMINAL LAWS, PREVENTIVE DETENTION, ELECTRICITY and such like.
So essentially, during the campaign for the STATE LEGISLATURE if a contestant or a party talks of WAR, TELECOMMUNICATIONS, DEFENCE or CENTRAL EXCISE, INCOME TAX, then we should know that he is talking of areas which are beyond his legislative competence. It is nothing NATIONAL but subject-wise competence.
IN EFFECT ALL ISSUES ARE NATIONAL, BUT STATES HAVE THE LIBERTY TO DECIDE ON ISSUES MENTIONED IN LIST II. TO BELIEVE OR MAKE IT APPEAR THAT ONLY THE LEGISLATORS OF LIST I ARE “NATIONAL LEGISLATORS” IS MISSING THE POINT. STATES HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE LIBERTY TO DECIDE ON CERTAIN ISSUES SO THAT THE CULTURAL MORES AND OTHER NICETIES ARE NOT SMUDGED IN THE NAME OF NATIONALISM.
LONG LIVE INDIA, IN ITS LIST I &LIST II LEGISLATURES!