parliament is empowered to establish inter state council under article 263.
who empowered to establish inter state council under article 263?
parliament
inter-state council





























the inter-state council is a non-permanent constitutional body set up by a presidential order on the basis of provisions in article 263 of the constitution of india. the body was formed by a presidential order dated 28 may 1990 on recommendation of sarkaria commission. the council is formed to discuss or investigate policies, subjects of common interest, and disputes among states.





























section::::aims.





























bullet::::1. decentralization of powers to the states as much as possible.





























bullet::::2. more transfer of financial resources to the states.





























bullet::::3. arrangements for devolution in such a way that the states can fulfil their obligations.
inter-state council
however, only a limited number of people can bring claims for judicial review. under tfeu article 263(2), a member state, the parliament, council or commission have automatic rights to seek judicial review. but under article 263(4) a "natural or legal person" must have a "direct and individual concern" about the regulatory act. "direct" concern means that someone is affected by an eu act without "the interposition of an autonomous will between the decision and its effect", for instance by a national government body. in "piraiki-patraiki v commission", a group of greek textile businesses, who exported cotton products to france, challenged a commission decision allow france to limit exports. the commission argued that the exporters were not directly concerned, because france might decide not to limit exports, but the court of justice held this possibility was "entirely theoretical". a challenge could be brought. by contrast in "municipality of differdange v commission" a municipality wanted to challenge the commissions decision to aid steel firms which reduced production: this would probably reduce its tax collections. but the court of justice held that because luxembourg had discretion, and its decision to reduce capacity was not inevitable, the municipality had no "direct" concern (its complaint was with the luxembourg government instead). "individual" concern requires that someone is affected specifically, not as a member of a group. in "plaumann & co v commission" the court of justice held that a clementine importer was not individually concerned when the commission refused permission to germany to stop import custom duties. this kept it more expensive for mr plaumann to import clementines, but it was equally expensive for everyone else. this decision heavily restricted the number of people who could claim for judicial review. in "unión de pequeños agricultores", advocate general jacobs propose a broader test of allowing anyone to claim if there was a "substantial adverse effect" on the claimant's interests. here, a group of spanish olive oil producers challenged council regulation no 1638/98, which withdrew subsidies. because regulations are not implemented in national law, but have direct effect, they argued the requirement for individual concern would deny them effective judicial protection. the court of justice held that direct actions were still not allowed: if this was unsatisfactory the member states would have to change the treaties. individual concern is not needed, however under article 263(4), if an act is not legislation, but just a "regulatory act". in "inuit tapiriit kanatami v parliament and council" the court of justice affirmed that a regulation does not count as a "regulatory act" within the treaty's meaning: it is only meant for acts of lesser importance. here, a canadian group representing the inuit people wished to challenge a regulation on seal products, but were not allowed. they would have to show both direct and individual concern as normal. thus, without a treaty change, eu administrative law remains one of the most restrictive in europe.
european union law