Residuary powers refers to the legislative competence of Parliament to make laws on any matter not enumerated in the State List (List II) or the Concurrent List (List III) of the Seventh Schedule. Under Indian law, Article 248 of the Constitution vests this residuary power exclusively in Parliament, and Entry 97 of the Union List provides the corresponding field of legislation for "any other matter not enumerated in List II or List III."
Legal definition
Article 248 of the Constitution of India provides:
Article 248(1): Parliament has exclusive power to make any law with respect to any matter not enumerated in the Concurrent List or State List.
Article 248(2): Such power shall include the power of making any law imposing a tax not mentioned in either of those Lists.
Entry 97 of the Union List (List I, Seventh Schedule) complements Article 248:
Entry 97: Any other matter not enumerated in List II or List III including any tax not mentioned in either of those Lists.
The combined effect of Article 248 and Entry 97 is that Parliament has a residual power to legislate on any subject that is not specifically assigned to the States or shared between the Centre and States. This is a deliberate constitutional design — in the Indian federal system, residuary powers vest in the Centre, unlike in the United States where residuary powers vest in the States under the Tenth Amendment.
How courts have interpreted this term
Union of India v. H.S. Dhillon [(1971) 2 SCC 779]
The Supreme Court established the definitive test for invoking residuary power. The Court held that when Parliament's legislative competence is challenged, the correct approach is to first ascertain whether the subject falls within the State List (List II). If it does not, no further inquiry is required — Parliament is competent to legislate either under a specific Union or Concurrent List entry or under the residuary power of Article 248 read with Entry 97. The Court rejected the argument that Parliament must affirmatively demonstrate that the subject falls within a specific Union List entry.
Attorney General for India v. Amratlal Prajivandas [(1994) 5 SCC 54]
The Supreme Court observed that the test to determine Parliament's legislative competence is whether the statute is relatable to any entry in List II. If it is not, Parliament is competent — either under a Union or Concurrent List entry or under the residuary power. The Court applied this principle to uphold the SAFEMA (Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators Forfeiture of Property Act, 1976), which could not be precisely located within any single Union List entry.
K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa [(1953) SCR 1]
While primarily a colourable legislation case, the Court acknowledged that Parliament's residuary powers are broad and encompass all subjects not specifically enumerated elsewhere. The Court confirmed the principle that the Indian Constitution vests residuary powers in the Union, reflecting the centralist bias of the federal structure.
Why this matters
Residuary powers are a critical feature of the Indian federal design. They ensure that no subject of governance falls into a legislative vacuum — every conceivable subject is either within a specific entry of the three lists or falls within Parliament's residuary competence. This is particularly important for emerging subjects that the framers could not have anticipated in 1950.
For practitioners, the residuary power under Article 248 is the last resort when no specific entry in the Union or Concurrent List can accommodate a piece of Central legislation. Modern subjects like information technology, space law, nuclear energy regulation, cryptocurrency, and artificial intelligence are all areas where Parliament has legislated or may legislate using its residuary power, since these subjects find no express mention in the Seventh Schedule.
A common misconception is that residuary power is unlimited. While it is expansive, it is subject to the same constitutional limitations as any other legislative power. Laws enacted under Article 248 must still comply with Fundamental Rights under Part III, the basic structure doctrine, and other constitutional provisions. Moreover, if a State can demonstrate that a subject genuinely falls within a State List entry, Parliament cannot use Article 248 to legislate on it — the residuary power applies only to genuinely unenumerated subjects.
Related terms
Legislative framework:
Related concepts:
Frequently asked questions
Why do residuary powers vest in the Centre and not the States?
The framers of the Indian Constitution deliberately vested residuary powers in Parliament, unlike the US Constitution where residuary powers vest in the States. This reflects the unitary bias in Indian federalism — the Constitution was drafted in the aftermath of Partition and the integration of princely states, and the framers preferred a strong Centre to ensure national unity and stability.
Can a State challenge a Central law enacted under residuary power?
Yes. A State can challenge a Central law by demonstrating that the subject genuinely falls within a State List entry and is not an unenumerated matter. If the court determines that the law's pith and substance relates to a State List subject, the Central law would be ultra vires Parliament's competence, and the residuary power cannot be invoked to circumvent the distribution of legislative powers.
What subjects have been regulated using residuary powers?
Parliament has used residuary power to legislate on subjects not contemplated in 1950, including information technology (IT Act, 2000), space activities, nuclear energy, and satellite communications. The residuary power also covers taxes not mentioned in any list — for instance, certain service taxes were initially imposed under Article 248 before the GST regime consolidated indirect taxation.
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.