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

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.

Simple Meaning

Article 254 sets the rule of repugnancy for subjects on the Concurrent List. If a state law conflicts with a central law, the central law prevails, and the state law becomes void to the extent of the conflict. However, if the state law has been reserved for and received the President's assent, it will prevail in that specific state, though Parliament can still override it by passing a new law.

Explain Like Ten

If the central government and a state government both write rules about the same Concurrent subject (like schools or contracts) and they clash, the central government's rule wins. But if the President specifically approves the state's rule, the state's rule is allowed in that state.

Student Mode

Article 254 establishes the Doctrine of Repugnancy for Concurrent List subjects. Clause (1) states that if a state law is repugnant to a central law, the central law prevails. However, Clause (2) provides an exception: if the state law has been reserved for and received the assent of the President, it prevails in that state. Even then, Parliament can subsequently override or amend the state law.

Example

Both the Center and a State pass laws on consumer protection (Concurrent List). If the State law has provisions that contradict the Central law, the Central law prevails. But if the state reserves its bill for the President's assent and receives it, the state's customized rules apply locally in that state.

Key Takeaway

Article 254 establishes the ultimate supremacy of Union law in the Concurrent List while leaving a constitutional window for state-specific adaptations via Presidential assent.

FAQs

What is the exception to the rule of central supremacy on Concurrent subjects?

Under Article 254(2), a state law can prevail if it receives the assent of the President, but it will only apply within that specific state.

Can Parliament override a state law that has received Presidential assent under Article 254(2)?

Yes. Parliament can still enact a law at any time adding to, amending, varying, or repealing the state law so assented to.

Quiz

Which doctrine is associated with Article 254 of the Constitution?

Answer: Doctrine of Repugnancy

Under Article 254(2), whose assent is required for a state law to override a central law on a Concurrent subject in that state?

Answer: The President

Related Topics

• Article 253
• Article 255