Constitution of India
Article 254: Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States
Part XI — Relations between the Union and the States (Chapter I — Legislative Relations, Distribution of Legislative Powers)
Clause (1)
WHAT IT SAYS: If a State law is repugnant to a Parliamentary law or an existing law on a Concurrent List subject, the Parliamentary/existing law prevails and the State law is void to the extent of repugnancy — regardless of whether the central law was passed before or after the State law. WHAT IT MEANS: Central legislation on Concurrent List matters always overrides conflicting State legislation — State law becomes void pro tanto (to that extent only). KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Repugnancy — three tests laid down in Deep Chand v. State of U.P. (1959): (a) direct conflict, (b) Parliament intended exhaustive code, (c) both laws occupy the same field.
Clause (2)
WHAT IT SAYS: A State law on a Concurrent List subject that is repugnant to an earlier Parliamentary law or existing law shall prevail within that State — IF it has been reserved for the President's consideration and has received Presidential assent. PROVISO: Parliament can at any time enact a new law on the same matter — including adding to, amending, varying, or repealing the State law so assented to. WHAT IT MEANS: Presidential assent is the 'safety valve' — it lets States deviate from central law on Concurrent List matters, but Parliament retains ultimate supremacy to override at any time. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Presidential Assent under Clause (2) — assent must be specific and informed, not a mere formality (Kaiser-i-Hind Pvt. Ltd. v. Kaiser-i-Hind Pvt. Ltd., 2002).
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. Government of India Act, 1935 — Section 107 Original provision: Section 107 addressed repugnancy between federal and provincial laws on concurrent subjects, giving federal law supremacy. What India kept: The basic framework of central supremacy over conflicting State laws on Concurrent List subjects, and the exception allowing provincial/state law to prevail with Governor-General's/President's assent. 2. Australian Constitution — Section 109 Original provision: Federal laws prevail over inconsistent State laws to the extent of the inconsistency. What India kept: The concept of paramountcy of central law and voiding State law 'to the extent of repugnancy' — also adopted the three tests of repugnancy from Australian jurisprudence (Professor Nicholas Aroney's tests). 3. Canadian Doctrine of Federal Paramountcy Original provision: Federal laws supersede conflicting provincial laws on concurrent subjects. What India kept: The principle that in concurrent legislative fields, the higher legislature prevails. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Presidential Assent Exception (Clause 2) — Allows State laws to prevail with Presidential assent, a safeguard absent in Australian Section 109, reflecting India's need to accommodate regional diversity. 2. Parliament's Ultimate Override Power (Proviso to Clause 2) — Even after Presidential assent, Parliament can override the State law, ensuring unitary override in the quasi-federal structure. 3. Coverage of 'Existing Law' — Article 254 covers pre-Constitution laws (existing laws) in addition to Parliamentary laws, ensuring continuity of legal framework from colonial era.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 13 June 1949 (CAD Volume VIII) DRAFT ARTICLE: Draft Article 231 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Chairman, Drafting Committee) — Moved amendment No. 2788 to add the words 'or Part III' after 'Part I' in clause (2), extending the article's coverage to princely states (Part III States) in addition to Governor's Provinces (Part I States). 2. Shri A. Thanu Pillai (Travancore State) — Noted that the original Draft did not intend to place Part III States on the same footing as Part I States, and that this was a recent decision still being incorporated. 3. Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena — Argued that the Draft Article merely reproduced Section 100 of the Government of India Act, 1935, and urged the House to consider the dissenting note of Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar proposing a revised scheme of distribution of legislative powers. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar's Dissent — He differed from the Drafting Committee majority and proposed a revised scheme for division of powers between Parliament and State Legislatures, arguing the 1935 Act's framework needed updating since residuary powers were now settled with the Centre. 2. Extension to Part III States — There was concern about placing princely states on par with Governor's Provinces without fully settling Centre-Part III State relations. FINAL OUTCOME: The amendment adding 'or Part III' was adopted without debate; the Draft Article was adopted on 13 June 1949 as it stood — Alladi's proposed alternative scheme was not adopted. NOTE: The article was subsequently amended by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956 — omitting the words 'specified in Part A or Part B of the First Schedule' from clause (2) following States Reorganisation.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Deep Chand v. State of U.P. (1959) — Laid down the three tests of repugnancy: (a) direct conflict between provisions, (b) Parliament intended exhaustive code replacing State law, (c) both laws occupy the same field. State law void to extent of repugnancy. 2. M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India (1979) — Held that repugnancy requires two enactments to be absolutely irreconcilable; defined three conditions — inconsistency, irreconcilable nature, and direct collision making obedience to one impossible without disobeying the other. 3. Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1983) — Held that Article 254 applies only when both laws are on Concurrent List subjects; conflicts between List I/III and List II are resolved through Article 246 and the doctrine of pith and substance. 4. Bharat Hydro Power Corporation Ltd. v. State of Assam (2004) — Held that if two enactments operate in different fields without encroaching upon each other, there is no repugnancy under Article 254. 5. Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank (2018) — Held Maharashtra Relief Undertakings Act repugnant to IBC under Article 254(1); confirmed Article 254 is substantially modelled on Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1935. 6. Forum for People's Collective Efforts v. State of West Bengal (2021) — Struck down WB-HIRA as repugnant to RERA under Article 254; applied the three tests of repugnancy; reinforced central law supremacy on Concurrent List subjects. NOTABLE DISSENTS (if any): 1. Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar (Drafting Committee, 1949) — Dissented from the Drafting Committee's approach of reproducing Section 100 of GI Act 1935 verbatim, and proposed a revised scheme for distribution of legislative powers. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. Sarkaria Commission (1988) — Examined the balance of power between the Union and States, including the repugnancy doctrine, and recommended greater consultation before central legislation on Concurrent List subjects. 2. Punchhi Commission (2010) — Further explored federal relations and suggested that central law-making on Concurrent List subjects should involve prior consultation with States to strengthen cooperative federalism.