Article 254

Article 254 of the Constitution of India provides a constitutional mechanism for resolving conflicts between laws made by Parliament and State Legislatures on subjects that fall within the Concurrent List (List III) of the Seventh Schedule. It establishes the principle of Parliamentary supremacy in case of inconsistencies between Central and State laws, while also incorporating a limited exception that allows State laws to prevail in specific circumstances with Presidential assent.
This provision safeguards legislative harmony in India’s federal structure, ensuring uniformity in national policy while permitting controlled regional variation.

Constitutional Context and Purpose

The Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule contains subjects on which both Parliament and State Legislatures can make laws — for example, criminal law, marriage and divorce, bankruptcy, education, labour welfare, and environmental protection.
Given that both levels of government can legislate on the same subjects, conflicts or repugnancies may arise. Article 254 provides a constitutional rule of priority to determine which law prevails in such cases. Its purpose is to maintain legislative coherence and ensure that laws across India do not contradict or undermine each other.

Text and Structure of Article 254

Article 254 is composed of two key clauses that define the relationship between Central and State legislation:
Clause (1): Supremacy of Parliamentary Law

• If a State law is inconsistent with a law made by Parliament or with an existing Central law on a subject in the Concurrent List, the Central law prevails, and the State law becomes void to the extent of the inconsistency.
• This applies regardless of whether the Parliamentary law was enacted before or after the State law.

Clause (2): Exception — State Law with Presidential Assent

• A State law on a Concurrent List subject may prevail within that State, even if it conflicts with a Parliamentary law, provided it has received the President’s assent.
• However, Parliament retains the power to override such a State law at any time by enacting a new law on the same subject.

This clause creates a limited exception to the general rule of federal subordination, allowing flexibility within India’s quasi-federal system.

The Concept of “Repugnancy”

The term repugnancy refers to an irreconcilable conflict between a Central and a State law, where both occupy the same legislative field, and it is impossible to obey one without violating the other.
For repugnancy to arise under Article 254:

1. Both laws must relate to a matter in the Concurrent List.
2. Both laws must be validly enacted within their respective legislative competence.
3. The provisions of the two laws must be inconsistent or contradictory in operation or effect.

Repugnancy does not arise if the two laws operate in distinct fields or can coexist harmoniously.

Judicial Interpretation and Key Case Laws

Over the decades, the Supreme Court of India has clarified the principles governing Article 254 through several landmark judgments:

• State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1963): The Court reaffirmed the supremacy of Parliamentary laws in cases of conflict, asserting that when both legislatures act within their powers, the Union law must prevail in the event of inconsistency.
• K. K. Verma v. Union of India (1954): The case addressed how to determine repugnancy between Central and State laws, laying the foundation for the judicial test of conflict.
• M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India (1979): The Supreme Court formulated a comprehensive test for determining repugnancy:
  • Both laws must be valid and relate to a Concurrent List subject.
  • There must be a direct conflict or incompatibility between the two.
  • If both can operate independently, there is no repugnancy.
  • If repugnancy exists, the Central law prevails unless the State law has received Presidential assent.
• Bihar v. Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Ltd. (2006): The Court reaffirmed that Presidential assent under Article 254(2) validates an otherwise inconsistent State law within that State, though Parliament retains the power to override it.
• State of Karnataka v. Union of India (1977): The judgment emphasised that Article 254 preserves national legislative coherence while allowing flexibility for State-specific variations under central oversight.

These cases collectively affirm that Article 254 functions as a constitutional safety valve, balancing national uniformity with federal autonomy.

Mechanism of Presidential Assent

The President’s assent, as provided under Clause (2), plays a vital role in reconciling federal and regional interests:

1. If a State Legislature enacts a law that is inconsistent with an existing Central law on a Concurrent List subject, it must be reserved for the President’s consideration.
2. Upon Presidential assent, the State law becomes valid within that State, even if inconsistent with the Central law.
3. The effect of such assent is State-specific and continues only until Parliament enacts a new law overriding the State legislation.

This mechanism allows States to experiment with policies suited to local conditions while preserving the ultimate supremacy of Parliament.

Illustrative Examples of Application

Article 254 has been invoked in several contexts where both Central and State laws addressed similar subjects in the Concurrent List:

• Labour Legislation: Conflicts between the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central) and State amendments in Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Kerala have been resolved using Article 254.
• Criminal Law: Differences between provisions in the Indian Penal Code and State-specific laws concerning public order or offences have been examined under this Article.
• Environmental and Land Reforms: State laws concerning land ceiling, tenancy reforms, or forest management have often required Presidential assent due to overlap with Central statutes.

Relationship with Other Constitutional Provisions

Article 254 operates in coordination with other key Articles governing legislative powers:

• Article 246: Defines the distribution of legislative subjects between the Union and the States.
• Article 251: Deals with inconsistency between Central and State laws when Parliament legislates under special powers during a national emergency or in the national interest.
• Article 372: Ensures the continuance of pre-Constitution laws unless modified or repealed.

Together, these Articles create a structured hierarchy for resolving legislative conflicts and maintaining constitutional order.

Implications and Significance

Article 254 serves several essential purposes in the Indian constitutional framework:

• Preserves national uniformity: Ensures that important subjects in the Concurrent List are governed by consistent laws across India.
• Balances federal and unitary principles: Allows States some flexibility through Presidential assent while maintaining Parliament’s ultimate supremacy.
• Prevents legislative chaos: Provides a clear constitutional rule to resolve overlapping or contradictory laws.
• Supports cooperative federalism: Encourages dialogue between the Centre and States before enacting potentially conflicting legislation.

Thus, Article 254 acts as a harmonising provision, preventing legal fragmentation in matters of shared legislative competence.

Limitations of Article 254

While Article 254 ensures legal consistency, certain limitations and challenges persist:

• The Presidential assent mechanism may introduce political considerations into the legislative process.
• States may find it difficult to secure assent for progressive or experimental laws that diverge from national policy.
• The override power of Parliament means that State autonomy remains subordinate in cases of prolonged conflict.

Despite these challenges, Article 254 continues to function as a practical tool for maintaining constitutional balance and legislative order.