Part XI: Legislative Relations

Article 251: Inconsistency Between Parliamentary and State Laws

Original Article:

Nothing in Articles 249 and 250 shall restrict the power of the Legislature of a State to make any law which under this Constitution it has power to make, but 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 has under either of the said articles power to make, the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of the State, shall prevail, and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall to the extent of the repugnancy, but so long only as the law made by Parliament continues to have effect, be inoperative.

Explanations:

Article 251 addresses conflicts between State and Parliamentary laws made under Articles 249 and 250. It ensures that Parliamentary laws prevail in case of inconsistency, emphasizing the temporary nature of such conflicts while preserving State legislative autonomy outside the scope of national or emergency needs.

State Legislature’s Right to Legislate

Article 251 confirms that State Legislatures retain the power to make laws under the Constitution, even during situations where Parliament has legislated under Articles 249 and 250.

Supremacy of Parliamentary Laws

In case of inconsistency between State and Parliamentary laws, the latter prevails. However, this supremacy is temporary and ceases when the Parliamentary law becomes inoperative.

Real-Life Examples:

If Parliament enacts a public health law during an epidemic under Article 249, conflicting State laws are rendered inoperative to ensure uniformity in the response. Once the Parliamentary law ceases to have effect, State laws regain their authority.

Historical Significance:

Article 251 reflects the balance of federalism by allowing Parliamentary laws to address national needs temporarily, while ensuring that State autonomy is restored once the situation stabilizes.