Concurrent List is the third list in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, containing 47 subjects on which both Parliament and State Legislatures have the power to legislate. Under Indian law, the Concurrent List is established by Article 246(2), which provides that both Parliament and State Legislatures may make laws on any of the matters enumerated in List III, subject to Article 254 which gives Central law precedence in case of conflict.
Legal definition
Article 246(2) of the Constitution provides:
Article 246(2): Notwithstanding anything in clause (3), Parliament, and, subject to clause (1), the Legislature of any State also, have power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List III in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the "Concurrent List").
The Concurrent List currently contains 47 entries (originally 47 in 1950, with subsequent additions and deletions through constitutional amendments). Key entries include:
- Entry 1: Criminal law (including the IPC/BNS but excluding offences against Union laws)
- Entry 2: Criminal procedure (including CrPC/BNSS)
- Entry 5: Marriage and divorce; infants and minors; adoption; wills; intestacy and succession
- Entry 11A: Administration of justice; constitution and organisation of all courts except the Supreme Court and High Courts (added by 42nd Amendment)
- Entry 17A: Forests (transferred from State List by 42nd Amendment)
- Entry 20: Economic and social planning
- Entry 25: Education (transferred from State List by 42nd Amendment)
- Entry 33: Trade and commerce in, and the production, supply and distribution of various products
- Entry 36: Factories
- Entry 45: Inquiries and statistics for any of the matters in List II or III
The 42nd Amendment (1976) transferred five subjects from the State List to the Concurrent List: education, forests, protection of wild animals and birds, weights and measures, and administration of justice.
How courts have interpreted this term
State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara [AIR 1951 SC 318]
The Supreme Court addressed the scope of entries in the Concurrent List and held that entries in the three lists should be given a wide and liberal interpretation. The Court held that where a legislation falls under an entry in the Concurrent List, both Parliament and the State Legislature are competent to enact it, but in case of conflict, the Central law prevails under Article 254(1).
M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India [(1979) 3 SCC 431]
The Court laid down the definitive test for determining when a Central law and a State law on a Concurrent List subject are "repugnant" under Article 254. The three conditions are: direct inconsistency, irreconcilable conflict, and impossibility of obeying one without disobeying the other. This case established that mere overlap between Central and State laws on a Concurrent List subject does not automatically trigger repugnancy — harmonious construction is preferred.
Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar [(1983) 4 SCC 45]
The Supreme Court held that when determining whether a subject falls within the Concurrent List, the court must consider the pith and substance of the legislation, not merely its incidental effects. A State law is not invalid merely because it touches upon a matter in the Union List, if in its pith and substance it falls within the Concurrent or State List.
Why this matters
The Concurrent List is the arena of shared legislative power between the Centre and States. It determines which subjects can be legislated upon by both levels of government and, through Article 254, establishes the hierarchy when both legislate on the same subject. The expansion of the Concurrent List through the 42nd Amendment significantly shifted the balance of power towards the Centre, as subjects like education and forests — previously within exclusive State competence — became subject to Central legislation.
For practitioners, understanding the Concurrent List is essential in any case involving the legislative competence of a State law that touches upon a subject also covered by Central legislation. The critical question is always whether the State law is repugnant to a Central law under Article 254(1), and if so, whether it has received Presidential assent under Article 254(2). Additionally, practitioners must be aware that Parliament can always override a State law on a Concurrent List subject, even if the State law has received Presidential assent.
A practical observation: the most litigated Concurrent List entries are criminal law (Entry 1), criminal procedure (Entry 2), trade and commerce (Entry 33), and education (Entry 25). The transfer of education to the Concurrent List through the 42nd Amendment enabled Parliament to enact comprehensive education laws like the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
Related terms
Seventh Schedule:
Related provisions:
Frequently asked questions
How many subjects are in the Concurrent List?
The Concurrent List (List III of the Seventh Schedule) currently contains 47 entries. The 42nd Amendment (1976) transferred five subjects from the State List to the Concurrent List: education (Entry 25), forests (Entry 17A), protection of wild animals and birds (Entry 17B), weights and measures (Entry 33A), and administration of justice and constitution of courts (Entry 11A).
What happens when both Central and State laws exist on a Concurrent List subject?
Both laws can coexist as long as they are not inconsistent. If there is a direct, irreconcilable inconsistency between them, Article 254(1) provides that the Central law prevails and the State law is void to the extent of the repugnancy. However, under Article 254(2), a State law can prevail over an earlier Central law if it has received Presidential assent, though Parliament can still override it by enacting a subsequent law.
Can the Concurrent List be modified?
Yes. The Concurrent List can be modified through a constitutional amendment under Article 368. Such an amendment requires a special majority in Parliament (majority of total membership plus two-thirds of those present and voting) and ratification by at least half the State Legislatures, since it affects the Seventh Schedule. The 42nd Amendment (1976) is the most significant example, having transferred five subjects from the State List to the Concurrent List.
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.