Doctrine of Repugnancy under Article 254

On subjects in the Concurrent List, both Parliament and the State Legislatures can legislate. When their laws conflict, one must give way. Article 254 decides which: ordinarily the law of Parliament prevails, but a State law reserved for and assented to by the President may prevail in that State. This note explains Article 254, the tests for deciding whether a conflict amounts to repugnancy, and the leading cases.

1. Article 254

Figure 1: How Article 254 operates

• Article 254(1). If a State law is repugnant to a law of Parliament on a Concurrent List matter, the law of Parliament prevails, whether passed before or after the State law, and the State law is void to the extent of repugnancy.
• Article 254(2). A State law on a Concurrent List matter that is repugnant to an earlier law of Parliament prevails in that State if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and received his assent.
• Proviso. Parliament may later enact a law on the same matter, including one adding to, amending, varying or repealing the State law.

2. Tests of Repugnancy

• Deep Chand (1959). The Supreme Court identified three tests: whether there is direct conflict between the two provisions; whether Parliament intended to lay down an exhaustive code on the subject, replacing the State law; and whether both laws occupy the same field.
• M. Karunanidhi (1979). The Court held that repugnancy arises only where both laws are on a Concurrent List subject and are so inconsistent that they cannot stand together; a State law is not repugnant merely because it supplements the Central law.
• Harmonise first. Before finding repugnancy, courts try to reconcile the two laws (Topic 7)

3. The Leading Cases

Figure 2: Repugnancy in the Supreme Court

• Zaverbhai Amaidas (1954). A State law that had prevailed under Article 254(2) was impliedly repealed when Parliament later enacted a law on the same matter, under the proviso (Topic 22)
• Hoechst Pharmaceuticals (1983). The Court held that Article 254 applies only to conflicts on Concurrent List subjects; conflicts between laws on different lists are resolved by pith and substance, not Article 254 (Topic 27)
• Kaiser-I-Hind (2002). A Constitution Bench held that the President's assent under Article 254(2) is effective only for the specific repugnancy for which it was sought and given; it does not protect the State law against other Central laws not placed before the President.

4. Frequently Asked Questions

What is the doctrine of repugnancy?

It is the rule in Article 254 that where a State law on a Concurrent List subject conflicts with a law of Parliament, the law of Parliament prevails and the State law is void to the extent of the repugnancy. The exception in Article 254(2) allows a State law reserved for and assented to by the President to prevail in that State, subject to Parliament's power to amend or repeal it later.

What are the tests of repugnancy?

In Deep Chand v State of UP (1959) the Supreme Court laid down three tests: whether there is direct conflict between the two provisions; whether Parliament intended its law to be an exhaustive code on the subject; and whether the two laws occupy the same field. Repugnancy exists only where the laws cannot stand together.

What is the effect of the President's assent under Article 254(2)?

It makes the State law prevail in that State over the earlier Central law with which it conflicts. But in Kaiser-I-Hind v National Textile Corporation (2002) a Constitution Bench held that the assent is effective only for the repugnancy for which it was sought and granted, and does not protect the State law against other Central laws.

5. Related Topics

• Topic 27: Doctrine of Pith and Substance. Conflicts across lists.
• Topic 22: Repeal of Statutes. Implied repeal under the proviso.