Article 254 of the Indian Constitution deals with the situation where there is a conflict or repugnancy between a law made by Parliament and a law made by a State Legislature, particularly when both are competent to make laws on the same subject matter. This scenario primarily arises concerning subjects listed in the Concurrent List (List III of the Seventh Schedule).
While Article 254(1) establishes the general principle that if there is a repugnancy between a Union law and a State law on a Concurrent List subject, the Union law prevails and the State law is void to the extent of the repugnancy, Article 254(2) provides a significant exception to this rule, offering a mechanism for a State law to prevail within that State under specific conditions.
Original Text
(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.
Detailed Explanation
Article 254(2) addresses a specific situation of repugnancy between a State law and a Union law concerning a subject listed in the Concurrent List. It lays down conditions under which a State law can override an earlier Union law or an existing law on the same matter within that State.
The conditions are:
- The State Legislature must have made a law regarding a matter enumerated in the Concurrent List.
- This State law must contain provisions that are repugnant (in conflict, inconsistent, or irreconcilable) with the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament on the same matter, or with an existing law (a law made before the commencement of the Constitution by the Legislature of a Dominion of India or by the Legislature of a Province or by an authority having power to make laws in such area, which is still in force).
- Crucially, the State law, after being passed by the State Legislature, must have been reserved for the consideration of the President of India.
- The State law must have received the assent of the President.
If these conditions are met, then the State law shall prevail in that particular State where it was enacted, notwithstanding its repugnancy with the earlier Union law or existing law. The Union law will cease to operate in that State to the extent of the repugnancy, but it will remain in force in other States unless it is a law of a general nature intended to apply throughout the country.
However, Article 254(2) is subject to a significant proviso. The proviso states that Parliament is not prevented from enacting at any time a law with respect to the same matter. This means that even if a State law has prevailed due to Presidential assent, Parliament retains its supreme legislative power. Parliament can subsequently enact a new law on the same Concurrent List subject, and this new parliamentary law can add to, amend, vary, or even repeal the State law that had previously received Presidential assent. When Parliament makes such a subsequent law, the State law again becomes void to the extent of its repugnancy with the new parliamentary law. This proviso ensures the ultimate legislative supremacy of the Union Parliament on Concurrent List subjects.
Detailed Notes
- Article 254 deals with the resolution of conflicts between Union and State laws, particularly on Concurrent List subjects.
- Article 254(1) establishes the general rule: Union law prevails over State law on a Concurrent List matter in case of repugnancy.
- Article 254(2) provides an exception to Article 254(1).
- It applies when a State law on a Concurrent List matter is repugnant to an earlier Union law or an existing law on the same matter.
- For the State law to prevail in this specific scenario, two conditions must be met:
- The State law must be reserved for the consideration of the President.
- The State law must receive the President’s assent.
- If these conditions are met, the State law prevails within that State, overriding the earlier Union law or existing law in that State to the extent of the repugnancy.
- The Union law or existing law remains in force in other States unless repealed or superseded elsewhere.
- The prevalence of the State law under Article 254(2) is not absolute or permanent.
- The proviso to Article 254(2) grants Parliament the power to legislate on the same matter at any time after the State law has received Presidential assent.
- Parliament’s subsequent law can add to, amend, vary, or repeal the State law that prevailed due to Presidential assent.
- If Parliament enacts such a subsequent law, the State law will again become void to the extent of its repugnancy with the new parliamentary law.
- This proviso underscores Parliament’s ultimate legislative authority over Concurrent List subjects.
- Presidential assent under Article 254(2) is not merely ceremonial; it’s a constitutional requirement that allows a State law to escape the operation of Article 254(1).
- This mechanism allows States some flexibility in adapting Union laws or existing laws to local conditions, provided they secure Presidential assent.
- However, this flexibility is always subject to Parliament’s overriding power.
Additional Comments
- The purpose of requiring Presidential assent is to ensure that the Union Executive is aware of and approves the State law’s departure from or modification of an earlier Union law or existing law, thus maintaining a degree of national coherence.
- Article 254(2) reflects a balance in the federal structure, allowing States to tailor laws on concurrent subjects while preserving the Union’s ultimate legislative supremacy.
- This provision is frequently invoked by State Legislatures when they wish to pass laws that might conflict with central legislation on subjects like land acquisition, education, forests, etc.
- The power under the proviso is exercised by Parliament passing a new law on the subject, not by the President withdrawing assent.
- The phrase “existing law” refers primarily to laws made before the Constitution came into force (pre-Constitution laws) that are still applicable.
- The repugnancy must be real and not merely a possibility. It arises when the two laws occupy the same field, and it is impossible to obey both or when the State law seeks to alter or repeal the Union law or existing law.
Summary
Article 254(2) provides an exception to the general rule of Union law prevalence on Concurrent List subjects. It states that if a State law on a Concurrent List matter is repugnant to an earlier Union law or existing law, but has been reserved for and received the President’s assent, it will prevail in that specific State. However, this prevalence is not final, as the proviso to Article 254(2) empowers Parliament to enact a subsequent law on the same matter at any time, which can add to, amend, vary, or repeal the State law that received Presidential assent, thereby reasserting parliamentary supremacy.