Article 162

The Constitution divides law-making power between the Union and the States through the Seventh Schedule (Union, State, and Concurrent Lists). The framers wanted a government's day-to-day administrative (executive) power to match its law-making power, so that states could actually run the subjects assigned to them. But for subjects both Centre and States can legislate on, they built in a tie-breaker favouring the Union, to avoid administrative chaos or conflicting government actions on the same subject across the country.

In Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab (1955), the Supreme Court held that executive power is coextensive with legislative power under Article 162 — a state government can act administratively on matters within its legislative competence even without a specific law authorising the action, as long as it doesn't violate any existing law or fundamental rights. Later cases have applied the proviso to hold that in the Concurrent List sphere, state executive action or policy must give way to Union executive power or a valid central law occupying that field.

• Myth: State governments can exercise executive power over any matter they wish, without limits.
  Fact: Article 162 confines a state's executive power strictly to subjects its legislature is constitutionally allowed to legislate on.
• Myth: A government must always pass a specific law before it can take any administrative action.
  Fact: Courts, notably in Ram Jawaya Kapur (1955), held that executive power can be exercised within legislative competence even without a specific statute, provided it doesn't violate existing laws or rights.
• Myth: States and the Union have completely separate, non-overlapping executive powers.
  Fact: On Concurrent List subjects, both have law-making power, but Article 162's proviso makes the state's executive power subordinate to the Union's expressly conferred or legislated executive authority.