Part XI: Legislative Relations

Article 254: Inconsistency Between Parliament and State Laws

Original Article:

(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, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void.

(2) Where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State:
Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.

Explanations:

Article 254 resolves conflicts between State and Central laws on matters in the Concurrent List. It ensures the supremacy of Parliamentary legislation while allowing limited autonomy to States through Presidential assent.

Clause (1): Supremacy of Central Legislation

If a State law conflicts with a Parliamentary law, the Parliamentary law prevails, and the State law becomes void to the extent of the inconsistency.

Clause (2): Exception with Presidential Assent

A State law on the Concurrent List can prevail if it receives the President’s assent, but Parliament retains the power to override it later by enacting a new law.

Real-Life Examples:

- Land Reform Laws: State-specific land reform laws conflicted with central legislation but were upheld through Presidential assent. - Environmental Laws: Some States implemented stricter environmental regulations that prevailed within their boundaries after Presidential assent.

Historical Significance:

Article 254 exemplifies India’s federal structure by balancing national cohesion with State-specific needs. It reflects the framers' intent to prevent legislative conflicts from disrupting governance.