India’s states are cluttered with outdated laws—A ‘clean’ slate could bring order to the statute book

Every legal system faces the problem of legislative sedimentation. State governments, in particular, often lack an authoritative inventory of their own statutes. Some are mere legal fossils, colonial regulations on boating and ferries, post-Independence controls on telegraph wires, or obsolete licensing frameworks that predate digital systems. Such enactments are harmless in isolation but collectively corrosive. They perpetuate uncertainty, expand discretion and undermine administrative efficiency and legal predictability.

Law reform, therefore, must begin not with new legislation but with the rationalisation of existing law. Rajasthan’s statutory reform project (2014–2016) remains one of the most systematic efforts so far.

The state began with an assumed corpus of 900 statutes and discovered only 592. Of these, 61 principal Acts, 187 amending Acts and 8 ordinances dating back to 1949 were repealed. The rest were harmonised and digitised. What made the exercise instructive was its method, exhaustive listing, departmental justification, legal vetting, consolidation and publication.

If other states wish to replicate this, a coherent framework will be needed. One way to conceptualise this is through the acronym C.L.E.A.N. i.e. Catalogue, Legal Audit, Eliminate, Align and New Governance.

The first step, Catalogue, is the creation of a verified and digitised repository of all state legislation, principal, amending and subordinate. This requires collecting and authenticating every statute since the state’s formation, retrieving missing or unpublished texts from government presses or legislative archives, and assigning each statute a unique identifier.

The result should be a State Statute Register, a comprehensive, machine-readable database that is publicly accessible. A state can’t meaningfully reform what it cannot trace.

The second step, Legal Audit, is a substantive review. Each administrative department must undertake a structured examination of the statutes it administers. This should distinguish between three categories. (1) Repeal: Laws that are obsolete, superseded, redundant or unenforced. (2) Consolidate: Laws that are overlapping and can be merged into a unified statute. (3) Modernise: Laws that are relevant but require linguistic or procedural reform.

A simple doctrinal test can guide this audit. The Purpose Test asks whether the law continues to serve a legitimate public objective. The Constitutional Test examines if it remains consistent with subsequent judicial interpretation and constitutional amendments.

The Efficacy Test checks whether the institutional machinery for implementation still exists and functions effectively. The Enforceability Test asks a more fundamental question: can the state credibly enforce the law with the administrative and financial capacity available? A statute that cannot be enforced in practice erodes respect for law in principle.

The Overlap Test determines whether the field has since been occupied by central or newer state legislation. Finally, the Burden Test assesses whether the compliance and enforcement costs are proportionate to the regulatory purpose. Only those statutes that satisfy these tests should remain on the statute book.

The third step, Eliminate, translates audit findings into legislative action. Once obsolete laws are identified, they must be formally repealed through a Repealing and Amending Bill. The process must also encompass subordinate legislation, rules, orders and notifications that exist without operative Acts. Public consultation, ideally through a repeal portal, can strengthen legitimacy and invite expert participation.

The fourth step, Align, concerns harmonisation. Surviving statutes often contain inconsistent definitions, duplicative provisions and procedural contradictions. Alignment helps rationalise and standardise legislative drafting across sectors. The process may include consolidation (merging multiple related laws into one), creation of uniform definitions and simplification of legal language. Drafting reforms should follow the principles of clarity, accessibility and linguistic precision.

The fifth step, New Governance, implies institutionalisation. Law reform should not depend on political mood or bureaucratic initiative. It must be embedded in the governance architecture. States should establish a permanent Law Reform and Simplification Commission to review all laws every five years. It should identify conflicts and redundancies. Over time, rationalisation must become a continuous, self-correcting process.

A sound legal order requires the discipline to forget. Laws that outlive their purpose burden governance and erode legitimacy. Renewal, not accumulation, is the measure of legislative maturity.

The author is a public policy professional.