The Constitution of India
Article 290
Adjustment in respect of certain expenses and pensions
Where under the provisions of this Constitution the expenses of any court or Commission, or the pension payable to or in respect of a person who has served before the commencement of this Constitution under the Crown in India or after such commencement in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State, are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India or the Consolidated Fund of a State, then, if —
(a) in the case of a charge on the Consolidated Fund of India, the court or Commission serves any of the separate needs of a State, or the person has served wholly or in part in connection with the affairs of a State; or
(b) in the case of a charge on the Consolidated Fund of a State, the court or Commission serves any of the separate needs of the Union or another State, or the person has served wholly or in part in connection with the affairs of the Union or another State,
there shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the State or, as the case may be, the Consolidated Fund of India or the Consolidated Fund of the other State, such contribution in respect of the expenses or pension as may be agreed, or as may in default of agreement be determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Chief Justice of India.
Why this exists
India's federal structure separates the Union's finances from each State's finances, but in practice courts, commissions, and long-serving officials often work across these boundaries—especially those who served under the British Crown before 1947 and continued into independent India's Union or State administrations. Article 290 ensures that when one government's treasury pays for something that actually benefits another government (a shared court, a commission serving multiple states, or a pensioner whose service crossed jurisdictions), costs are fairly apportioned rather than unfairly borne by just one government. It reflects the framers' pragmatic approach to fiscal federalism, avoiding disputes by building in both a negotiation mechanism and a neutral arbitration backstop through the Chief Justice of India.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Article 290 lets the Union or a State refuse to pay pensions or court expenses altogether if another government is involved.
Fact: The Article doesn't cancel anyone's payment obligation—it only ensures fair cost-sharing (contribution) between governments when benefits are shared, not a way to avoid payment. - Myth: Disputes under this Article must go to a regular court.
Fact: The Constitution specifically provides for arbitration by an arbitrator appointed by the Chief Justice of India, not ordinary litigation, if the governments can't agree on the contribution amount.