Article 254 of the Costitution of India with Case law
🔹 Article 254 of the Constitution of India – Inconsistency Between Laws Made by Parliament and State Legislatures
📘 Text of Article 254
Clause (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, the Parliamentary law shall prevail, and the State law shall be void to the extent of the repugnancy.
Clause (2):
However, if a State law (relating to a subject in the Concurrent List) is inconsistent with a Parliamentary law, it shall still prevail in that State if it has received the President’s assent.
But even then, Parliament can override it by making a new law later.
🧾 Key Concepts of Article 254
| Provision | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Concurrent List Conflict | Deals with laws made on subjects in the Concurrent List (List III of Schedule VII) |
| Repugnancy | Conflict between State law and Central law on the same subject |
| General Rule | Central law prevails over State law |
| Exception (Clause 2) | State law can prevail with Presidential assent |
| Overriding Power | Parliament can nullify the State law even after President’s assent |
⚖️ Important Case Laws on Article 254
🔹 M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India, (1979) 3 SCC 431
Issue: Whether State law was repugnant to Central law on the same subject.
Held:
Repugnancy arises only when both laws are inconsistent and cannot stand together.
If both can operate in their own fields, no repugnancy.
Test Laid Down:
Whether there’s direct inconsistency;
Whether both laws occupy the same field;
Whether compliance with one would result in violation of the other.
Significance: Leading case defining the doctrine of repugnancy.
🔹 State of Kerala v. Mar Appraem Kuri Co. Ltd., (2012) 7 SCC 106
Issue: Conflict between Kerala Chitties Act and Central Chit Funds Act, 1982.
Held: Central Act overrides the State Act under Article 254(1) as both dealt with the same subject.
Significance: Parliamentary law prevails if there’s direct repugnancy.
🔹 Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 1019
Facts: Challenge to a Bihar Act imposing additional taxes.
Held: Parliamentary law will prevail in the event of inconsistency, unless the State law had Presidential assent.
Significance: Clarified when Article 254(2) operates.
🔹 Zaverbhai Amaidas v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 752
Facts: Conflict between Essential Supplies Act (Central) and Bombay Act.
Held: State law is void to the extent of repugnancy if not assented to by the President.
Importance: Early and foundational case on Article 254.
🔹 Bangalore Water Supply v. A. Rajappa, AIR 1978 SC 548
Relevance: Applied the repugnancy doctrine to labour legislation, upheld Central authority.
📌 Examples of Application
| Case | Central Law | State Law | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kerala Chitties Act | Chit Funds Act, 1982 | Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 | Central law prevails |
| Bombay Prohibition Act | Essential Supplies Act | Bombay Act | Central law prevails unless assent obtained |
📝 Summary Table
| Clause | Subject | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| 254(1) | General Rule | Central law prevails over conflicting State law on Concurrent List |
| 254(2) | Exception | State law with President’s assent can prevail in that State |
| Override | Parliament may override State law later | Even after assent |
✅ Conclusion
Article 254 ensures uniformity in laws on Concurrent List subjects by giving primacy to Parliamentary law in case of conflict. However, it also allows flexibility by enabling a State law to prevail with the President’s assent, showing the balance between federal and unitary elements in India's Constitution.
RELATED Blog
0 comments