Article 251

Article 251 of the Constitution of India establishes a clear rule of precedence in situations where there is a conflict between laws made by Parliament and laws made by State Legislatures, particularly when Parliament legislates on matters usually reserved for the States under special circumstances provided in Articles 249 and 250. It is a vital constitutional provision that preserves legislative harmony and ensures the smooth operation of India’s federal system during times when the Union exercises exceptional law-making powers.

Constitutional Context and Purpose

Under normal circumstances, the State List (List II of the Seventh Schedule) falls within the exclusive legislative domain of State Legislatures. However, Articles 249 and 250 empower Parliament to temporarily legislate on these State subjects — either in the national interest (Article 249) or during a national emergency (Article 250).
When both Parliament and the States enact laws on the same subject during such periods, conflicts or inconsistencies may arise. Article 251 resolves these conflicts by giving supremacy to the Parliamentary law, but only within the limits of necessity and for as long as the central legislation remains valid.
This provision ensures uniformity of national laws without permanently diminishing the legislative authority of the States, thus maintaining the balance between centralisation and federalism.

Text and Scope of Article 251

Article 251 provides:
“Nothing in Articles 249 and 250 shall restrict the power of the Legislature of a State to make any law which it is competent to make; but 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 has under either of the said Articles power to make, the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of the State, shall prevail, and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, but so long only as the law made by Parliament continues to have effect, be inoperative.”
The key elements of this provision are:

• The State Legislature retains its power to make laws even when Parliament legislates on a State subject under Articles 249 or 250.
• However, if there is repugnancy (conflict or inconsistency) between the State law and the Parliamentary law, the latter shall prevail.
• The State law becomes inoperative only to the extent of the inconsistency and only for as long as the Parliamentary law remains in force.
• Once the Parliamentary law ceases to operate — for instance, when the national emergency ends or the Rajya Sabha resolution under Article 249 expires — the State law automatically regains full effect.

Thus, Article 251 provides a temporary and conditional supremacy to Parliament’s laws.

Relationship with Articles 249 and 250

Article 251 operates in direct connection with Articles 249 and 250:

• Article 249 allows Parliament to make laws on matters in the State List when the Rajya Sabha passes a resolution, supported by a two-thirds majority, declaring that such legislation is necessary in the national interest.
• Article 250 empowers Parliament to legislate on State List subjects during a Proclamation of Emergency under Articles 352, 356, or 360.

When Parliament exercises these powers, its laws may overlap with existing or future State laws. Article 251 acts as the constitutional mechanism for resolving such conflicts, ensuring legal certainty and national coherence.

Principle of Repugnancy

The concept of repugnancy or inconsistency is central to Article 251. It arises when:

1. Both Parliament and a State Legislature legislate on the same subject.
2. The two laws are directly contradictory, or compliance with one would mean disobedience to the other.

Under Article 251, repugnancy is addressed in a manner that temporarily favours Parliament’s law. However, unlike Article 254 (which deals with repugnancy in the Concurrent List), Article 251 specifically applies to State List matters legislated under the exceptional powers of Articles 249 and 250.
The effect of repugnancy is limited in two ways:

• The State law is suspended, not repealed.
• The suspension continues only while the Parliamentary law is in force.

This ensures that State laws automatically revive once the central law ceases to operate, reflecting the Constitution’s respect for State autonomy.

Judicial Interpretation and Case Law

The judiciary has played a significant role in interpreting the scope and implications of Article 251 in maintaining the federal balance.

• State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1963): The Supreme Court upheld the supremacy of Parliamentary laws when enacted under constitutional provisions such as Articles 249 and 250, reiterating that the Union’s temporary power in such circumstances is constitutionally valid and binding.
• Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): The Court introduced the basic structure doctrine, which indirectly influences Article 251 by affirming that the balance of power between the Centre and the States forms part of the Constitution’s basic structure.
• Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980): The Court emphasised the balance between centralisation and federalism, noting that emergency or national-interest legislation must not permanently erode the autonomy of States.

Through these judgments, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the temporary and limited supremacy of Parliament’s powers under Article 251, ensuring that India’s federal character remains intact.

Legislative and Practical Implications

Article 251 serves as a practical tool for ensuring legislative consistency and clarity during exceptional circumstances. Its implications include:

• Uniformity of laws: Ensures nationwide uniformity on issues of national importance during emergencies or when required in the national interest.
• Preservation of federal balance: Once the special circumstances cease, States automatically regain exclusive control over their legislative domains.
• Clarity in governance: Avoids legal confusion by establishing a hierarchy of laws in situations where both the Union and the States legislate on the same subject.
• Flexibility in law-making: Allows the Centre to respond quickly to crises while maintaining constitutional safeguards.

In practice, Parliament has used its powers under Articles 249 and 250 only sparingly, with Article 251 serving as a constitutional safety mechanism to regulate such instances.

Limitations and Safeguards

Despite granting supremacy to Parliament under certain conditions, Article 251 incorporates several safeguards to prevent misuse:

• It operates only during the validity of laws made under Articles 249 or 250.
• The State Legislature’s competence remains intact, meaning it can continue to legislate even during this period.
• The State law is merely suspended, not invalidated or repealed.
• The Article applies only to actual conflicts, not to all laws enacted simultaneously by both levels of government.

These safeguards protect the federal principle and ensure that Parliament’s extraordinary powers do not permanently diminish State legislative authority.

Comparison with Article 254

While both Articles 251 and 254 deal with repugnancy between central and state laws, they differ in scope and application:

• Article 251 applies to conflicts arising when Parliament legislates under special powers (Articles 249 or 250) concerning the State List.
• Article 254 deals with conflicts between Union and State laws on subjects in the Concurrent List.
• Under Article 251, the State law automatically revives once the Parliamentary law ceases to operate; under Article 254, revival requires a fresh legislative act or Presidential assent.

This distinction underscores the temporary and exceptional nature of Article 251’s application.

Significance in Federal Governance

Article 251 is significant for maintaining the constitutional balance between unity and diversity in India’s governance structure. It ensures that:

• National interests are safeguarded through Parliamentary supremacy when necessary.
• State autonomy is preserved, as the suspension of State laws is temporary.
• Legal certainty is maintained during emergencies and exceptional situations.

By defining the precedence of laws in special contexts, Article 251 acts as a stabilising provision that reconciles the competing needs of national uniformity and regional self-governance.