Article 254(1) of the Indian Constitution: Repugnancy between Union and State Laws on Concurrent List | Kanoon.site
Kanoon.site ≐ Blog
« Article 253 Article 254(2) »

Article 254(1) of the Indian Constitution: Repugnancy between Union and State Laws on Concurrent List

Part: XI
Shorthand Notes: Union law overrides State law on Concurrent List if repugnant (subject to 254(2))

Article 254 of the Indian Constitution deals with the crucial issue of inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States. This article is particularly relevant in a federal structure like India, where both the Union and the States have powers to legislate on matters listed in the Concurrent List (List III of the Seventh Schedule). Article 254 provides the mechanism to resolve conflicts or overlaps when both levels of government legislate on the same subject.

Clause (1) of Article 254 lays down the general rule regarding the prevalence of Union law over State law in case of repugnancy concerning matters enumerated in the Concurrent List. It operates as a fundamental principle ensuring legislative harmony and uniformity where necessary, while also acknowledging the State’s power to legislate on these shared subjects.

Original Text

(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.

Detailed Explanation

Article 254(1) addresses situations where a law enacted by a State Legislature conflicts with either a law made by Parliament or an existing law, specifically concerning subjects listed in the Concurrent List. The Concurrent List contains subjects on which both the Union Parliament and State Legislatures have legislative competence.

The core principle established by this clause is the doctrine of “repugnancy.” Repugnancy arises when there is an inconsistency, conflict, or clash between two laws. Courts have identified different tests for determining repugnancy:

  1. Direct conflict: Compliance with one law makes it impossible to comply with the other.
  2. Parliament’s intention to occupy the field: Parliament’s law is intended to be a complete and exhaustive code on the subject matter, leaving no room for State legislation.
  3. Conflict in policy or intention: Even without a direct conflict, the two laws cannot stand together due to conflicting aims or principles.

Article 254(1) states that if a State law’s provision is found to be repugnant to: a. A provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, OR b. A provision of an existing law (meaning a law in force immediately before the commencement of the Constitution) concerning a Concurrent List matter,

Then, the law made by Parliament or the existing law “shall prevail.” Consequently, the State law “shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void.” This means the State law is not necessarily void in its entirety, but only those specific provisions that are inconsistent with the Union/existing law. The principle is one of limited nullification to the extent of the conflict.

This prevalence of Union law applies regardless of whether the Parliamentary law was enacted before or after the State law. This ensures the supremacy of central legislation on Concurrent subjects in cases of conflict, maintaining a degree of national uniformity. However, this general rule is made subject to the provisions of clause (2), which carves out an important exception.

Detailed Notes

  • Purpose: Addresses legislative conflicts on matters in the Concurrent List (List III, Seventh Schedule).
  • Applicability: Applies when a State law’s provision is inconsistent (repugnant) with a Union law or an existing law.
  • Scope of Comparison: Compares a State law with:
    • A law made by Parliament, provided Parliament was competent to enact it.
    • An existing law relating to a Concurrent List matter.
  • Competence of Parliament: Refers to Parliament’s power to make laws on subjects in the Union List, Concurrent List, or under specific constitutional provisions (e.g., Article 249, 250, 253). Article 254 specifically focuses on Concurrent List matters.
  • Existing Law: Refers to a law in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of the Constitution.
  • Repugnancy: The core concept; indicates inconsistency, conflict, or inability for both laws to stand together. Judicially determined through tests like direct conflict, intent to occupy the field, or conflict in policy.
  • Effect of Repugnancy: If repugnancy exists as per the conditions of the clause, the following happens:
    • The law made by Parliament OR the existing law (whichever is the basis of comparison) “shall prevail.”
    • The law made by the State Legislature “shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void.” This means only the conflicting part of the State law is invalidated.
  • Timing: The Parliamentary law prevails whether it was passed before or after the State law.
  • Conditional Application: The entire clause (1) is explicitly made “subject to the provisions of clause (2).” This is crucial as clause (2) provides a mechanism for a State law on a Concurrent subject, if repugnant to a prior Union law, to prevail within that State if it has received the assent of the President.
  • Doctrine of Severability: The phrase “to the extent of the repugnancy, be void” implies that if the void part of the State law can be separated from the valid part without affecting the intent of the legislature, the remaining part remains valid. This is the doctrine of severability.
  • Federal Principle: Reflects the federal principle with a bias towards the Union in resolving legislative overlaps on shared subjects, ensuring national uniformity.

Additional Comments

  • Article 254 must be read as a whole, with clause (1) stating the general rule of Union supremacy on Concurrent List repugnancy and clause (2) providing a significant exception to this rule based on Presidential assent.
  • The determination of repugnancy is a judicial function. Courts play a crucial role in interpreting whether a conflict exists and the extent to which the State law is void.
  • The application of Article 254(1) is limited to matters enumerated in the Concurrent List. Legislative conflicts on subjects exclusively in the Union List or State List are generally resolved by reference to the respective legislative competencies defined in Articles 245-246.
  • Understanding the different tests for determining repugnancy (e.g., direct conflict, occupied field) is essential for analyzing cases under this article.

Summary

Article 254(1) of the Indian Constitution establishes the principle that if a State law is inconsistent with a Union law enacted by Parliament (where Parliament is competent) or an existing law concerning a matter on the Concurrent List, the Union law or existing law shall take precedence. In such cases of repugnancy, the State law will be invalid only to the degree of that inconsistency. This principle applies regardless of whether the Union law was enacted before or after the State law, but it is subject to the exception provided in clause (2) of Article 254. This clause serves to resolve legislative overlaps and ensure the supremacy of central legislation on shared subjects in the absence of specific Presidential assent for the State law.
« Article 253 Article 254(2) »