VoxJuris
Home › Acts › Constitution › Part XI › Article 254

Constitution of India · Part XI: Relations Between the Union and the States · Distribution of Legislative Powers

Article 254: Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States

In plain words

If a State law conflicts with a law of Parliament that Parliament can make, or with an existing law on a Concurrent List matter, the law of Parliament or existing law prevails and the State law is void to that extent.

  • But a State law on a Concurrent List matter that conflicts with an earlier law of Parliament prevails in that State if it was reserved for and received the President's assent.
  • Parliament can still make a later law on the same matter, including one that amends or repeals the State law.

A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.

Read the in-depth explanation, with key Supreme Court rulings ↓

Official 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.

(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.

Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the official text of the Constitution of India. As amended up to the Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, 2023. Text as on 10 September 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.

Understanding this article

Article 254 resolves conflicts between Central and State laws on Concurrent List subjects. Under clause (1) the Central law prevails and the State law is void to the extent of repugnancy. Under clause (2) a State law that has been reserved for and received the President's assent prevails in that State, unless Parliament later legislates otherwise.

When there is repugnancy

Two laws are repugnant when they cannot stand together. The Supreme Court uses three tests that originate in Australian law: (1) a direct conflict, where obeying one means breaking the other; (2) Parliament intended its law to be a complete and exhaustive code on the subject, occupying the field; (3) both laws deal with the same subject matter. If both can operate together, as where a State fixes a higher minimum price than the Centre, there is no repugnancy.

Clause (2) and Presidential assent

  • The State law must be on a Concurrent List matter.
  • It must be reserved for the President and receive assent.
  • Assent operates only against the Central laws whose repugnancy was pointed out when assent was sought (Kaiser-I-Hind).
  • Parliament can still override it later by a law on the same matter (proviso).

Only Concurrent List conflicts

Article 254 applies where both laws are traceable to the Concurrent List. If the State law falls under List II and the Central law under List I, the question is legislative competence under Article 246. This is a common confusion in exam answers.

Key Supreme Court rulings

  • M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India (1979) 3 SCC 431

    A Constitution Bench laid down the tests: repugnancy needs "inconsistent and irreconcilable provisions" that cannot operate in the same field; there is no repeal by implication unless the inconsistency is on the face of the statutes; if both can operate without collision there is no repugnancy; and a State law creating distinct offences in the same field is not repugnant.

  • Kaiser-I-Hind Pvt. Ltd. v. National Textile Corporation 2002 INSC 406

    Presidential assent under Article 254(2) is limited to the proposal made by the State; the State law prevails only over the Central laws whose repugnancy was pointed out and for which assent was sought.

  • Forum for People's Collective Efforts v. State of West Bengal 2021 INSC 283

    The West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act, 2017 was struck down as repugnant to the Central RERA; it occupied the same field, lifted RERA's provisions almost word for word, and set up a parallel regime instead of complementing the Central law.

  • Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank 2017 INSC 837

    The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code prevailed over the Maharashtra Relief Undertakings Act; the State moratorium could not stall an insolvency process under the Code.

Common mistakes

  • Applying Article 254 to a List I versus List II conflict.
  • Treating Presidential assent as validating the State law against every Central law.
  • Finding repugnancy merely because both laws cover the same ground; check whether they can operate together.

Read with: Article 246 Constitution, Article 213 Constitution, Article 201 Constitution

Prepared with AI assistance as a study aid. Every ruling listed was checked against the Supreme Court's own judgments on this site, and quoted words appear in those judgments; linked names open the full judgment. Read the judgments themselves before relying on them. Not legal advice.

Supreme Court judgments citing the article 254