When a State law and a Union law clash on the same Concurrent List subject, who wins? Article 254 answers: the Union law prevails, and the State law is void to the extent of the repugnancy — unless the State law has Presidential assent. It is the tie-breaker of Indian federalism.
(1) If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. (2) Where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.
When Repugnancy Arises
- Concurrent ListRepugnancy operates on matters in the Concurrent List where both Parliament and State Legislatures may legislate.
- 254(1)A repugnant State law is void to the extent of the repugnancy; the Union law prevails.
- 254(2)A State law reserved for the President and assented to prevails in that State.
- Why it mattersWithout 254, conflicting laws would leave citizens guessing which rule applies.
- So whatArticle 254 is the federal tie-breaker for overlapping laws.
The Test of Repugnancy
- Direct conflictRepugnancy exists when both laws cannot be obeyed at the same time.
- Occupied fieldThe Union law may occupy the whole field, leaving no room for the State law.
- Karunanidhi testM. Karunanidhi v. Union of India (1979) laid down when repugnancy truly arises.
- So whatThe test is: do the two laws clash irreconcilably, or can they coexist?
Article 254 vs Article 251
- 251During a national emergency, Parliament can legislate on State List matters and override State laws.
- 254In normal times, repugnancy on Concurrent List matters follows the 254 rules.
- So whatThe two articles share the ‘prevail’ idea but apply in different situations.
- So whatThe exam contrast: 251 is emergency-time paramountcy; 254 is the normal-time Concurrent List tie-breaker.
Work through a 5-question chain on Article 254, then keep practising with a random Indian Polity question.
The Story of the Tie-Breaker
- Why neededFederal systems need a rule when two legislatures touch the same subject.
- 1950Article 254 borrowed the Canadian model of paramountcy of central law.
- The assent route254(2) lets a State law survive with Presidential assent — a federal safety valve.
- So whatFrom labour laws to environment rules, Article 254 decides whose law stands.
- Why it mattersWithout a tie-breaker, two valid laws would leave citizens unable to know which to obey — 254 removes the doubt.
The Assent Route
- ReservationThe State Bill must be reserved for the President’s consideration.
- AssentWith the President’s assent, the State law prevails in that State.
- Parliament laterParliament may still enact a later law that amends, varies or repeals the State law.
- So what254(2) is a temporary victory for the State — Parliament always holds the final card.
- So whatThe assent route is how a State law outlives a conflicting Union law — until Parliament chooses to override.
UPSC 2019: Courts and Central Laws
- QuestionUPSC and other competitive exams ask whether a High Court can declare a central law invalid — it can, on repugnancy or constitutional grounds, which is why the repugnancy rules matter.
- WhyArticle 254 is the core of how central and state laws interact; the court question tests its application.
- LinkSource: UPSC CSP 2019 (see Q81).
Exam Angle: The Karunanidhi Test
- QuestionCompetitive exams ask which case laid down the real test for repugnancy — M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India (1979).
- WhyThe case fixed when two laws are truly repugnant under Article 254.
- Try itTest yourself on the Article 254 chain.
Conflicting Laws in the News
- Why it mattersFrom farm laws to labour codes, every Union-State legal clash is an Article 254 question.
- So whatWhen a State law is called ‘repugnant’, Article 254 is the constitutional referee.
- DevelopmentLabour-code and farm-law clashes show how 254(1) and 254(2) decide which law stands.
Leave a Reply