“WHETHER A STATE LEGISLATURE CAN ENACT A LAW CONTRADICTING A CENTRAL LAW ON THE SAME SUBJECT”
By: - Natasha Rocha is a 4th year BBA LLB Law student, studying at ISBR Law College affiliated to Karnataka State Law University.
I. Introduction
The question of whether a State Legislature can enact a law that contradicts a Central law on the same subject falls at the heart of India’s federal structure, where both the Union and the States derive law-making powers from the Constitution of India.
This is not merely a matter of legislative politics but of constitutional mechanics, primarily governed by:
1. Article 245 & 246 – Distribution of legislative powers.
2. Seventh Schedule – Union List, State List, and Concurrent List.
3. Article 254 – Doctrine of repugnancy.
India’s Constitution adopts a quasi-federal structure with a strong Centre. Consequently, where both Union and State laws operate on the same subject, the constitutional framework decides which prevails.
II. Constitutional Framework
1. Article 245 – Extent of Laws Made by Parliament and State Legislatures
Clause (1): Parliament may make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India.
Clause (2): State Legislatures can make laws for the whole or any part of the State.
Limitation: Subject to the provisions of the Constitution, particularly Articles 246 and 254.
2. Article 246 – Subject-Matter of Laws
Clause (1): Parliament has exclusive power to legislate on matters in the Union List (List I).
Clause (2): Both Parliament and State Legislatures can legislate on matters in the Concurrent List (List III).
Clause (3): States have exclusive power on the State List (List II), subject to clauses (1) and (2) — meaning Union supremacy is maintained in case of overlap.
Clause (4): Parliament can legislate on State List matters under certain circumstances (e.g., during national emergency, Article 249, 250, 252).
3. Seventh Schedule – Legislative Lists
List I – Union List: Subjects of national importance (e.g., defence, foreign affairs, banking).
List II – State List: Local/State matters (e.g., police, public order, agriculture).
List III – Concurrent List: Matters where both can legislate (e.g., criminal law, marriage, education).
4. Article 254 – Doctrine of Repugnancy
This is the most relevant provision when a State law contradicts a Central law on the same subject.
Clause (1):
If any provision of a State law is repugnant to a provision of a Central law on a matter in the Concurrent List, then the Central law prevails and the State law, to the extent of repugnancy, is void.Clause (2):
If the State law has been reserved for the President’s consideration and received his assent, it prevails in that State even if repugnant to a Central law.
However: Parliament can later enact a law overriding such State law.
III. When Can a State Law Contradict a Central Law?
1. Different Lists – No Conflict
If a State law is made on a subject in the State List and a Central law on a Union List subject, there is no conflict — both can operate independently.
Example: A State law on police administration does not clash with a Central law on defence.
2. Concurrent List – Possible Conflict
When both Union and State legislate on the same Concurrent List subject, repugnancy may arise.
Repugnancy Test: Whether it is impossible to obey both laws simultaneously, or whether Parliament intended to "cover the field" fully.
3. Presidential Assent as a Cure
If a State passes a law inconsistent with an existing Central law on a Concurrent List matter and secures Presidential assent, that State law prevails within that State (Art. 254(2)) until Parliament enacts a subsequent overriding law.
IV. Tests for Determining Repugnancy
The Supreme Court of India has evolved tests to identify when a State law is repugnant to a Central law:
1. Direct Conflict Test
If compliance with one law results in violation of the other, there is repugnancy.
# Case: Deep Chand v. State of U.P. (AIR 1959 SC 648)
Held that repugnancy arises when there is a direct inconsistency.
2. Occupied Field Test
If Parliament intends to "cover the field" completely, leaving no scope for State legislation, any State law in that field will be void.
# Case: M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India (1979 AIR 898)
Laid down that repugnancy occurs when:
Both laws are on the same subject matter.
There is direct inconsistency or
The Central law intends to be a complete and exhaustive code.
3. Same Subject-Matter Test
Both laws must relate to the same subject matter in substance, not merely in form.
# Case: State of Orissa v. M.A. Tulloch & Co. (AIR 1964 SC 1284) – If both laws deal with the same matter and are inconsistent, the Central law prevails.
V. Role of Presidential Assent (Art. 254(2))
How it Works:
State Legislature passes a bill repugnant to an existing Central law on a Concurrent List subject.
The bill is reserved for the consideration of the President (Art. 200).
If the President gives assent, the State law prevails in that State despite repugnancy.
Limitations:
Parliament can later amend, repeal, or override that State law.
Presidential assent must be specific and conscious — mere forwarding to the President is not enough (Kaiser-I-Hind Pvt. Ltd. v. National Textile Corporation, (2002) 8 SCC 182).
VI. # Case Law Analysis
1. Zaverbhai Amaidas v. State of Bombay (AIR 1954 SC 752)
Facts: Central law on essential commodities conflicted with a later State law imposing harsher punishments.
Held: Central law prevailed; the State law was void to the extent of repugnancy.
2. Tika Ramji v. State of U.P. (AIR 1956 SC 676)
No repugnancy because the Central and State laws operated in different spheres, though related to sugarcane.
3. M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India (1979)
Repugnancy arises only when both laws cover the same subject matter and there is direct conflict.
4. Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1983) 4 SCC 45
State law can operate in Concurrent List if no direct inconsistency; otherwise Central law prevails unless Presidential assent is obtained.
5. State of Kerala v. Mar Appraem Kuri Co. Ltd. (2012) 7 SCC 106
Reaffirmed that if the Central law occupies the field, a State law on the same matter, without Presidential assent, is void.
VII. Practical Implications
1. On Union List subjects: State cannot legislate; any such law will be void ab initio.
2. On State List subjects: State can legislate freely unless Parliament legislates under special provisions (Arts. 249–252).
3. On Concurrent List subjects:
o If both legislate and there is no conflict → both valid.
o If both legislate and there is conflict → Central law prevails (Art. 254(1)).
o If State law receives Presidential assent → State law prevails in that State (Art. 254(2)) until Parliament overrides.
VIII. Federal Balance Considerations
The constitutional design intentionally gives primacy to Parliament in case of overlapping legislative competence to maintain national uniformity on matters of concurrent importance.
However, Art. 254(2) allows States some flexibility to respond to regional needs, subject to Union oversight.
IX. Comparative Perspective
Australia: Similar rule under Section 109 of the Australian Constitution – Federal law prevails over State law in case of inconsistency.
Canada: Doctrine of "Paramountcy" – Federal law prevails over Provincial laws where both legislate on the same matter.
India’s model is more flexible, allowing State laws to prevail with Presidential assent.
X. Conclusion
A State Legislature cannot enact a law contradicting a Central law on the same subject in the Concurrent List unless it secures Presidential assent under Article 254(2).
Even then, Parliament retains the ultimate power to override such State law.
Thus, the hierarchy is:
1. Union List – Parliament’s exclusive domain.
2. State List – State’s exclusive domain, subject to Parliament’s exceptional powers.
3. Concurrent List – Both can legislate, but Central law prevails in case of conflict unless Presidential assent is obtained for the State law.
In India’s constitutional scheme, Union supremacy is the default, but States have a constitutional mechanism to enact laws contrary to Central laws in specific circumstances through Art. 254(2) — a reflection of cooperative federalism.
Date: 12th August 2025.
If you wish to use this content, proper credit must be given to both the author and this website, Please read the Disclaimer on the previous page.