Article 254 is the provision of the Constitution of India that resolves conflicts between Central and State laws on subjects in the Concurrent List by establishing that where a State law is repugnant to a Central law, the Central law prevails and the State law is void to the extent of the repugnancy. Under Indian law, this provision operationalises the doctrine of repugnancy, which is fundamental to the distribution of legislative powers in the Indian federal system.
Legal definition
Article 254 of the Constitution of India provides:
Article 254(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 the 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.
Article 254(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.
Clause (2) provides a crucial exception: a State law that is repugnant to a Central law can still prevail within that State if it receives Presidential assent under Article 200/201. However, even after such Presidential assent, Parliament retains the power to enact a subsequent law on the same subject that overrides the State law.
How courts have interpreted this term
Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 1959 SC 648]
The Supreme Court addressed the repugnancy between the U.P. Transport Services Act and the Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Court held that where both a State law and a Central law occupy the same field and are inconsistent with each other, the State law is void to the extent of the repugnancy under Article 254(1). The Court applied the "occupied field" test — if Parliament has legislated on a subject in the Concurrent List, the State Legislature cannot enact a law that conflicts with or operates in the same field.
M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India [(1979) 3 SCC 431]
The Supreme Court established the most authoritative framework for determining repugnancy under Article 254. The Court laid down three conditions that must be satisfied for repugnancy to arise: (1) there must be a clear and direct inconsistency between the Central and State Acts; (2) such inconsistency must be absolutely irreconcilable; and (3) the inconsistency must bring the two Acts into direct collision where "it is impossible to obey one without disobeying the other." The Court further clarified that repugnancy may arise in three situations: where the provisions of a Central Act and a State Act are directly inconsistent; where Parliament intended to lay down an exhaustive code on the subject, leaving no room for State legislation; and where the Central and State laws deal with the same subject but are intended to operate differently.
Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank [(2018) 1 SCC 407]
The Supreme Court applied Article 254(1) to hold that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (a Central law) prevailed over conflicting provisions of the Maharashtra Relief Undertakings Act, 1958 (a State law). The Court emphasised that once a Central law covers the field, all inconsistent State laws are void to the extent of repugnancy, regardless of whether the State law preceded or succeeded the Central law.
Why this matters
Article 254 is a cornerstone of Indian federalism. It resolves the inherent tension in a system where both the Centre and States can legislate on the same subjects in the Concurrent List (47 entries covering criminal law, bankruptcy, trade unions, education, forests, and more). Without Article 254, overlapping legislation would create legal chaos.
For practitioners, the doctrine of repugnancy has immediate practical consequences. A litigant relying on a State law that conflicts with a Central law on a Concurrent List subject may find the State law struck down. The three-part test from M. Karunanidhi is the controlling standard — courts will not invoke repugnancy lightly and will try to harmoniously construe both laws before declaring one void.
The Presidential assent mechanism under Article 254(2) is a significant but underutilised tool. States can effectively override Central laws on Concurrent List matters by obtaining Presidential assent for their legislation. However, this protection is not permanent — Parliament can always enact a subsequent law that overrides the State law, even one that has received Presidential assent.
Related terms
Constitutional framework:
Related doctrines:
Frequently asked questions
When does repugnancy arise between Central and State laws?
Repugnancy arises when both a Central law and a State law operate on the same subject in the Concurrent List and are directly inconsistent. In M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India (1979), the Supreme Court held that three conditions must be met: (1) clear and direct inconsistency; (2) the inconsistency must be absolutely irreconcilable; and (3) it must be impossible to obey one law without disobeying the other. Courts will first attempt to harmoniously interpret both laws before declaring repugnancy.
Can a State law override a Central law?
Yes, but only under Article 254(2). If a State law on a Concurrent List subject is repugnant to a Central law, it can prevail within that State if it receives Presidential assent. However, this protection is conditional — Parliament retains the power to enact a subsequent law on the same subject that overrides the State law, even after Presidential assent.
Does Article 254 apply to laws on subjects in the State List?
No. Article 254 applies only to laws made with respect to matters in the Concurrent List (List III of the Seventh Schedule). For State List subjects, the State Legislature has exclusive legislative competence under Article 246(3), and Parliament generally cannot legislate on those subjects except under Articles 249 (national interest), 250 (during Emergency), or 252 (with consent of States).
What is the difference between Article 254 and Article 13?
Article 13 deals with laws that are inconsistent with Fundamental Rights — such laws are void to the extent they violate Part III of the Constitution. Article 254 deals with the distinct problem of Central-State legislative conflicts on Concurrent List subjects. Article 13 protects individual rights against the state; Article 254 resolves inter-governmental legislative conflicts in a federal system.
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.