Vice-President calls for stronger Centre-State coordination for legal reforms

Vice-President C.P. Radhakrishnan asked the Union and State governments to work more closely on legal reform. He said political differences should not obstruct public interest. The aim is to create sound laws, transparent institutions, efficient administration and easier access to justice. These changes support the vision of ‘Viksit Bharat’ and a more dignified daily life for citizens.

He urged States to examine their own laws and identify provisions that have become outdated. State Law Commissions should recommend amendments or repeal wherever needed. At the same time, the Union and States should consult, coordinate and share responsibility on matters that require national cooperation. This approach respects the constitutional autonomy of States.

The message was cooperation, not complete uniformity. Radhakrishnan noted that States need flexibility to address local needs. The article cites the repeal of more than 1,700 obsolete laws over 12 years and the replacement of three colonial-era criminal laws. Continued review could improve governance and keep law aligned with changing society.

Cooperative federalism is a way of governing in which the Union and States work together on matters of shared public importance. It combines consultation, coordination and shared responsibility. The goal is not to centralise every decision, but to make government more effective while respecting the constitutional role of each State. Radhakrishnan linked this approach with the spirit of ‘Team India’.

For example, States can review their own outdated legislation and propose amendments or repeal through State Law Commissions. The Union can coordinate on national legal changes and shared constitutional responsibilities. Laws need not be identical if different States face different conditions. Cooperation can instead involve common goals, information-sharing, consultation and compatible action.

The article stresses that cooperative federalism does not mean uniformity in every matter. States must retain flexibility to address specific needs. At the same time, political differences should not block public interest. This balance can produce reforms that are nationally coherent, locally practical and better suited to changing social conditions.

The article reports that India repealed more than 1,700 obsolete laws during the past 12 years. It also says that three colonial-era criminal laws were replaced recently. These figures show that legal reform is not limited to proposals; significant changes have already been made to remove outdated rules and revise the criminal-law framework.

Repeal removes laws that are no longer needed, while replacement creates a new legal framework for an area that still requires regulation. The Vice-President presented both steps as part of keeping law in step with changing times. He also urged State Law Commissions to identify additional legislation that should be amended or repealed.

The reported numbers indicate continuing reform at both national and State levels. The article does not identify the three criminal laws by name or provide a State-by-State breakdown of the repealed laws. Its broader point is that legal reform supports effective administration, transparent institutions, access to justice and the wider goal of ‘Viksit Bharat’.

Outdated laws can burden governance when they no longer match social conditions, technology or administrative needs. Reviewing them can reveal rules that should be modernised, clarified or removed. The Vice-President said the ultimate purpose of law is to ensure a just, secure and dignified life for every citizen. Legal reform therefore matters beyond government offices.

Amendment can update an existing rule while preserving its basic purpose. Repeal can remove a law that is unnecessary or obsolete. The article gives a national example: more than 1,700 obsolete laws were repealed over 12 years, and three colonial-era criminal laws were replaced. State Law Commissions are expected to identify similar problems within State legislation.

The likely result is clearer law, more efficient administration and easier access to justice, although the article does not measure specific improvements in citizens’ daily lives. Reform can also help institutions respond to changing needs. Its success depends on sound laws, transparent institutions, effective implementation and coordination between the Union and States.

Under India’s constitutional system, the Union government makes laws on subjects assigned to the Union, while State governments legislate on subjects assigned to the States. Some subjects are shared, allowing both levels to make laws within constitutional rules. The Constitution also sets limits, procedures and principles that both governments must follow. These details come from established constitutional knowledge; the article does not enumerate them.

In practice, the Union handles matters requiring national coordination, while States can shape laws for their own conditions. On shared responsibilities, the two levels should consult and coordinate. State Law Commissions can examine State legislation and recommend amendment or repeal. The Union can pursue national legal reforms, such as replacing colonial-era criminal laws.

The Vice-President’s message is that responsibility should be collaborative rather than purely competitive. Political differences should not defeat public interest. States must preserve flexibility, but the Union and States should work together where constitutional responsibilities overlap. This arrangement aims to combine national coherence with laws that remain practical for local communities.

Colonial-era laws remained in India’s legal system because laws created before independence continued to govern after the country’s political transition. The article identifies three colonial-era criminal laws as recently replaced, but it does not explain their individual histories or names. The broader issue is whether inherited rules still serve citizens under present social and constitutional conditions.

A law may need amendment when its language, procedures or assumptions no longer fit modern life. It may need repeal when it has become unnecessary. Replacement is appropriate when an entire legal framework requires a new approach. The Vice-President urged States to review their legislation, while pointing to the national replacement of three colonial-era criminal laws as a recent reform.

Such changes can help law keep pace with changing times and improve governance. They may support transparent institutions, efficient administration and access to justice. Reform should still be careful and coordinated. The article’s central principle is that law must ultimately provide every citizen with a just, secure and dignified life.

India’s federal system gives the Union and States distinct constitutional roles while requiring them to work together on shared responsibilities. National coordination can promote consistent goals, stronger institutions and coherent legal reform. State autonomy allows governments to respond to different social, economic and administrative conditions. The Vice-President described this balance through consultation, coordination and shared responsibility.

The mechanism is cooperative federalism. The Union and States can discuss reforms, coordinate implementation and act together where responsibilities overlap. States can independently review their legislation through State Law Commissions and recommend amendments or repeal. They do not have to make every law identical, because the article says different States need flexibility to address specific needs.

The current challenge is to prevent political differences from obstructing public interest. Radhakrishnan urged a ‘Team India’ approach while defending constitutional autonomy. Replacing three colonial-era criminal laws and repealing more than 1,700 obsolete laws show the scale of reform. Further coordination could help legal systems remain effective as society changes.