The Constitution of India
Article 254
Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States
(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.
Why this exists
India's Constitution places some subjects (like criminal law, marriage, education) on the Concurrent List, meaning both Parliament and state legislatures can make laws on them. This creates a risk of conflicting laws. The framers, drawing on similar provisions in the Government of India Act, 1935, needed a clear rule for which law prevails, while still giving states some room to legislate according to local needs through presidential assent, without letting that permanently block national uniformity.
How courts read it
Courts have clarified that 'repugnancy' under Article 254 arises only when there is a direct, irreconcilable conflict between the two laws such that obeying one means disobeying the other (as discussed in cases like M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India, 1979). Courts have also held that repugnancy can occur even if Parliament and the State law occupy the same field without express conflict, in certain situations, and that mere overlap is not enough if both laws can operate together. Additionally, courts have ruled that presidential assent under Article 254(2) only protects the state law from repugnancy with the laws existing at that time, not from future central laws, and assent must be genuinely applied to the specific state law's provisions, not given mechanically.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Any overlap between a state law and a central law on the same topic automatically makes the state law void.
Fact: Courts have held that true repugnancy requires a direct, irreconcilable conflict; if both laws can operate together without contradiction, the state law isn't automatically invalid. - Myth: Once a state law gets the President's assent under Article 254(2), it permanently overrides central law on that subject.
Fact: Parliament can still pass a new law later on the same matter, and that new central law can override the previously assented state law.